By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer has signed a slew of bills passed by the legislature this year, and has also vetoed a larger-than-expected number of them.
While she usually lists technical reasons for her veto of a bill, her real reasons for vetoes usually boil down to either payback for past conflicts (see the linked story regarding her veto of SB1322) or protecting the turf of the governor from legislative encroachment.
From an Arizona Republic article by Alia Beard Rau and Jim Walsh -
Gov. Jan Brewer closed out this year's legislative session with a flurry of vetoes, nearly doubling what she blocked last year.
She issued a total of 29 vetoes, 14 of them coming at nearly 8 p.m. Friday night. She signed 357 bills into law.
Among her Friday night vetoes: a bill that would have required cities to allow the sale of fireworks during certain weeks of the year, one that would have removed 11 phrases from the state's 9/11 memorial and one that would have allowed most of the state's counties to turn many of its workers into at-will employees.
The 9/11 bill is HB2230; the fireworks bill is SB1379; the "put the screws to county employees" bill is HB2650.
AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has some good insight on the enactment of SB1333 here. It's one of Sen. Frank Antenori's "I hate Tucson, even though I represent part of it" bills. He has the info on many changes to election law here.
Dave Safier of BfA offers his perspective on two of Brewer's vetoes here.
Some of Brewer's veto/signing letters for specific bills (not just those dealt with Friday) include -
- SB1593, veto, health insurance, interstate purchase
- SB1088, veto, interstate compact, health care. Turf protection - it mandated something to the governor.
- SB1322, veto, privatizing city services in Phoenix and Tucson (Brewer listed some valid reasons for her veto, but the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl points out the fact that Brewer and Phoenix City Council member Sal DiCiccio, the bill's main proponent, aren't exactly close personal friends.
- HB2335, enacted, making some changes to ballots for presidential and vice-presidential candidates (NOT a birther bill). An imperfect bill, but she signed it anyway, saying that sponsor Jack Harper has promised to run a bill making corrections next session in time for the fall election.
- HB2177, veto, a birther bill. Possibly the most surprising veto in the bunch. Look for an "after-birther" bill next year, just in time for the presidential election.
- HB2700, veto, creating an 11th paid holiday for state employees. Once every hundred years.
- SB1525, enacted, limiting the ability of municipalities to impose and collect development fees
- SB1186, veto, a "tax corrections" bill. An annual bill to simply sync up state tax laws with federal tax laws, it was hijacked by Sen. Steve Yarbrough with an amendment that added language expanding the state's school tuition tax credits.
- HB2577/SB1561, veto, taking the ability to allocate certain federal funds away from the governor and giving it to the legislature. Turf protection. Not sure why the lege passed this one twice in one session. Maybe they think she's dumber than they are and wouldn't notice (I may not agree on almost anything with her, and she isn't exactly the most intellectually impressive member of the Arizona political world, but she *has* been in one office or another for over two decades. She's got to have something going for her.)
This isn't a complete list of vetoes or enactments, but one can be found here on the lege's website. Right now, it doesn't include Friday's bill dispositions. It should be updated on Monday, however.
In addition, any remaining bills outstanding have to be vetoed/signed no later than Monday, otherwise they become law without the governor's signature.
Back in the late 1990s, Tortolita and Casas Adobes attempted to incorporate as towns, despite the existence of Arizona law that prevented such incorporation because of the proximity to the City of Tucson, which had to give its approval. The courts later voided the incorporation attempts.
Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup was elected mayor for the first time in 1999 promising "mountain to mountain annexation" for the City of Tucson. Like so much of what Bob promised, it never happened.
Sen. Frank Antenori -- who wants you to know he is from Vail, do not associate him with those dirty hippies from Tucson -- wants to incorporate the town of Vail on the eastern edge of Tucson.
On Friday, Governor Jan Brewer signed Antenori's bill which is specifically targeted at Pima County.
SB 1333 modifies the statutes governing municipal incorporation and establishes time frames within which a prescribed distance of an incorporated city or town is declared an urbanized area.
Here is the House Summary transmitted to the governor. It stipulates that, "if a municipality causing an urbanized area to exist is in a county in which more than 60% but less than 65% of the population lives in an incorporated city or town and does not approve a petition requesting annexation of the area proposed for incorporation within 120 days of its presentation, the following applies within the provided time frames" of one to six years for a city or town having 5,000 or more persons in an urbanized area.
It also stipulates that, "through December 31, 2020, if the area proposed for incorporation has a population of 15,000 or more persons, is in a county in which more than 60% but less than 65% of the population lives in an incorporated city or town and has a governing board – including a planned community board of directors or a special district board – the Board shall proceed with the incorporation or annexation without a resolution by the city or town or a filed affidavit."
The City of Tucson will be reviewing this closely for a possible legal challenge, as it has done in the past. This bill is specifically targeted at Pima County, which makes it suspect.
It is an open question whether unincorporated urban areas of Pima County will seek to incorporate as towns. County residents' resistance to annexation into the City of Tucson is the same resistance to forming a town government of their own -- they do not want another layer of government nor do they want to pay taxes to support it.
They are happy with the status quo which costs Pima County millions of dollars in state revenue sharing every year (it is only shared with incorporated municipalities). Of course, an alternative would be to amend the state revenue sharing formula. Doh!
Kirk, a humble and honorable man can still wiggle out of a tweet by declaring it is not intended to be a factual statement. But I'm 90% certain you meant it.
I'm still trying to catch up, so while this is a few days old, I want to make a comment because it's good news, and not at all what I expected.
Brewer vetoed the second attempt at hiking the private school tuition tax credits from $500 per person to $750. I predicted earlier that the fix was in and she planned to sign the revised version and say the lawmakers made it fiscally responsible. I was wrong. Not only did Brewer issue a veto. She had to toss out a 140 page bill making technical changes to get rid of it. She scolded the legislature for including the tax credit hike into what was supposed to be a clean bill. For that, and for a few other vetoes, I give Brewer a limited "Good for you." However, given all the other crapola she signed, I'll amend that to read, "It's good to know you're not totally insane like most of the Republican legislators (or maybe it's a good thing your advisors who are also business lobbyists recommended you make some Chamber of Commerce-approved vetoes)."
The true joker (as in "What a joke this guy is!") in this incident is Steve Yarbrough, who was behind the tax credit hike. Remember, every tax credit dollar that makes its way through Yarbrough's STO -- the state's biggest -- gets 10% taken off the top for operating expenses. A good chunk of that goes into Yarbrough's pocket. Last time I checked, his STO brought in about $13 million,which means $1.3 million stays in the organization instead of going to scholarships. So if Yarbrough manages to push through a bill that raises donations, it also boosts his profits.
Apparently, his bill had a big loophole in it. Yarbrough said he and the other STOs wouldn't use the loophole, and he'd close it next session. I guess he thinks we should trust him, even though he can't write decent legislation after all these years and he's gotten rich with the backdoor voucher tuition tax credit scam. What a joker!
This has been a very active year for election law changes in the Arizona legislature. I would recommend that state and county political parties request that the Arizona Secretary of State provide a refresher course to update everyone on these election law changes. Public education is part of the duties of that office.
Here are some of the election law changes to date.
Pima County Election Integrity advocates will be happy to learn that a scanned-ballot election-auditing pilot program has been approved in this bill:
HB 2304, the "omnibus state elections" bill, makes numerous changes to election procedures, including allowing a permanent early voter to list a mailing address outside of the county of their residence; permits a candidate who has established an exploratory committee to collect contributions [the courts effectively eviscerated Arizona's "Resign to Run" law in 2010 in John Huppenthal's case; this makes it official]; allows corporations and unions to donate to an independent expenditure committee [the Citizens United v. FEC fallout]; defines electioneering as express support or opposition of a candidate, proposition or political party on the ballot; and allows the Secretary of State to establish a scanned-ballot election-auditing pilot program.
HB 2303 which permits a county to use voting centers instead of or in addition to designated polling places. Voting centers must allow any voter in that county to lawfully cast a ballot there. This is in recognition of the fact that vote-by-mail in Arizona has rendered precinct polling locations a costly burden for the few number of votes cast at precincts. It has also become more difficult for counties to obtain ADA-compliant polling locations available to contract as a precinct polling location.
HB 2701, a strike everything amendment which makes numerous changes to election law, including requiring the Secretary of State (SOS) to create a single voter-registration form for all counties to use and to develop a standardized training program for election workers across the state.
SB 1472 which requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to post information online regarding Arizona Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges prior to their elections for retention.
Howard Fischer reported that Governor Brewer signed a bill giving candidates the right to place campaign signs in the public right-of-way regardless of local ordinances. Brewer vetoes health insurance proposal, other measures (how about including the bill number, Howard). This bill originally was SB1307 but appears to have been folded into another bill or as a strike everything amendment (this is not the signed bill). I believe the language probably remains the same.
SB 1473 which requires facilities that offer early voting to allow people to electioneer outside the 75-foot limit in public areas and parking lots used by voters, except in the case of an emergency.
HB 2335 which adds the name of vice presidential candidates below that of presidential candidates on the ballot. I undestand that this will be amended by the legislature because it creates confusion: you actually vote for a slate of presidential electors, you do not directly vote for the president and no vote is directly cast for vice president. Doh! Arizona Capitol Times » Brewer signs bill adding VP candidates to ballots (subscription required).
SB 1318 which modifies the method of filling vacant seats on city and town councils, based on when the vacancy occurs.
Who would have thunk it that Governor Jan Brewer would stand up to "the crazy" from the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature? At least on the big-ticket items; she is still signing some of their pet bills.
On Friday, Governor Brewer vetoed a few more bad bills:
SB 1201, the "omnibus firearms" bill, which would have required state and local governments to either allow guns in public facilities or secure those buildings with metal detectors and armed guards. The bill wopuld have applied to government-owned pools, libraries, community centers and offices. Brewer previously vetoed the "guns on campus" bill, SB 1467. Gun advocates are in shock - shock I tell ya! - that the governor was not swayed by their armed intimidation.
Their self-proclaimed leader, Charles Heller from the Arizona Citizens Defense League, sounds like a petulant child with the "terrible threes" throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way. Gun-rights bill vetoed by Brewer:
"I don't know what's gotten into her," Charles Heller, the league's spokesman, said of Brewer. "Nothing in our wildest nightmares told us we'd miss Governor (Janet) Napolitano."
* * *
Heller, whose group pushed the gun bills, vowed the league will be back with a stronger effort next year.
"You ain't seen nothing yet," he said.
"If (Brewer) didn't like this one, wait till you see what we come out with next year."
Riiight. And Brewer will just veto it again, crybaby.
Sen. Frank Antenori will make another check mark on his "Sh*t List" of people to get even with for Governor Brewer's veto of his pet bill:
HB 2650 which would have ended the civil service merit selection system for county employees everywhere except, of course, the state of Maricopa. The bill would have required all counties except Maricopa to make all new hires, employees who change jobs within the county or employees who get raises to be converted to an at-will employee; allows a county board of supervisors anywhere but Maricopa County to make certain administrative positions at-will.
Frank Antenori is grousing in his troll cave today plotting his revenge against all those who do not let him have his way. He may be joined today by Rep. John Kavanagh over this veto:
HB 2230 which would have removed 11 phrases from the state's 9/11 Memorial that Rep. Kavanagh personally finds objectionable. Everyone's an art critic.
The Arizona Board of Regents has survived a power-grab challenge to its constitutional authority:
HB 2067 which would have prohibited the Arizona Board of Regents from having any authority of a non-profit that oversees any hospital affiliated with the University of Arizona for 18 months starting April 18, 2011.
Two miscellaneous vetoes:
SB 1329 which would have prohibited a public employee from engaging in any political activity or lobbying a governmental entity during the employee's work hours. The concern here was that this would have precluded public employees from attending legislative hearings during regular business hours (even though this Tea-Publican legislature has established a precedent for holding meetings in the wee hours of the morning with no public testimony or even the press present).
SB 1379 a strike everything amendment which would have prohibited a local government from banning the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks from June 15 through July 5, Dec. 12-31 or Jan. 1-2. Gotta have those July 4th fireworks!
SB 1041 the so-called “invest Arizona” bill which would have provided qualifying properties with an assessment ratio providing a significantly smaller property tax bill. The bill would have assessed as class 6 property the personal property and real property improvements that are newly constructed or renovated and owned or used by a qualifying business that meets capital investment and minimum hiring requirements.
Start Our State is also sponsoring Celebrate Free Baja Arizona Day! on Cinco de Mayo (that's May 5th for Tom Horne) at the Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue), from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Food will be provided, but you'll have to pay for your own drinks. The date was chosen by the Pima County Board of Supervisors in 1987. Free Baja Arizona Day is officially recognized by our County on May 5. We thought it appropriate to celebrate/observe the date this year, considering our movement and its history.
NOTE: new posts will continue to appear below this post.
To those of you who have attended a Drinking Liberally (a liberal forum for drinks and discussion), Reading Liberally (a liberal book club), Screening Liberally (a liberal cinema night), or Investing Liberally (a sustainable, values-driven investment club) event here in Tucson, or who have always intended to, but haven't gotten around to it, or who just like the idea of liberals getting together, we need your help.
Drinking Liberally bought an inexpensive PA system more than 3 years ago, and it is definitely showing its age. The mic no longer works except sporadically, the handles have busted off and the battery life is getting shorter all the time.
We need a new PA system and we found one that has everything we need, recording, in-line inputs, integral media player, dual wireless mics - we can have guest speakers, debates, forums, and could even do liberal karaoke nights with it! We need to raise $380.00 to purchase the new system.
In addition, we have web-hosting and domain costs for our website, www.livingliberallytucson.org, that we must pay for. This year's hosting and two years of domain registration are due, and the cost is almost $100.00. Maintaining an on-line presence isn't free.
"Autocracy, not democracy!" is the authoritarian Tea-Publican way. "Democracy is in the way of progress." Americans fought a revolution against such tyranny. This country has gone insane.
Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic has a short and succinct commentary today for the Clueless political reporters at the Arizona Daily Star. The federal antidote to budget butchery:
Arizona will suffer because GOP politicians clutched their no-taxes ideology like a security blanket despite the need for revenue. Their budget slashes services for kids and education, starves state parks and violates the voters' mandate to provide medical care to the poor. There is an alternative to such cruelty on the federal level. It's called "The People's Budget." Rep. Raúl Grijalva is a champion.
As I have warned before, "Let's not get carried away here, people." While Governor Brewer has vetoed some very bad Tea-Publican bills, she will throw them a bone for their pet bills that she does not believe will seriously affect this state, other than make us the butt of jokes for late-night comedy shows.
Governor Brewer signed SB 1402 which created 11 new specialty license plates, including the "Don't Tread On Me" Gadsden flag plate to benefit Tea Party organizations. My version (right) is more accurate.
This bill has some legal issues surrounding it, as it is the only license plate that benefits a political organization and it is run by a nonprofit committee appointed by elected officials who stand to directly benefit from those activities. About that 'Tea Party' license plate. I expect a legal challenge.
Brewer acted on the license plate bills late Thursday, approving them despite previously expressing concern about Arizona's absurd number of specialty license plates now numbering 46. Brewer OKs bill for Arizona tea party license plate:
The Legislature completed action April 26 on the bill authorizing the tea party plate. In the run-up to approval, opponents said the tag inappropriately promotes a specific political movement. Supporters said it's meant to stand up for constitutional principles. [Oh, please...]
Brewer felt comfortable signing the bill authorizing the tea party plate because the movement "is not a purely political organization," spokesman Matt Benson said Friday.
True. It is a corporate-funded front group for the Koch brothers' Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks, headed by front-man Dick Armey. It is corporate Astroturf that feigns to be a grassroots political movement. Take away the corporate funding and it disappears.
Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Phoenix) said it's wrong to use state resources to support a political organization, whether the tea party or the Democratic Party. "Why not get a bumper stick like everybody else?" [Damn straight!]
Backers now must raise $32,000 to design and produce the plate.
The Koch brothers carry around that much money in pocket change. The check has already been cut.
Brewer signed another totally unnecessary bill, SB 1610, designating the Colt Single-Action Army Revolver as Arizona's "official" state gun. We'll all be able to sleep better tonight knowing that we have an "official" state gun. Arizona Capitol Times » Brewer signs bill making Colt state gun:
Legislative supporters argued that the designation was appropriate because the revolver was widely used during Arizona territorial days.
Opponents said it was inappropriate to give the official designation to an out-of-state company’s commercial product.
Democratic Rep. Albert Hale also called the gun an instrument of destruction that was used against Native Americans.
I hope Native Americans will turn out in big numbers next November to express their displeasure with this Tea-Publican insult to Native Americans.
Connecticut-based Colt does not operate in Arizona and did not pay anything for the naming rights of "Arizona's official gun." The Tea-Publican legislature just gave away the "honor" without obtaining any financial benefit to the state. And they call themselves businessmen.
I told you about Governor Jan Brewer's first seven vetoes in Let's not get carried away here, people. This week she has added several more notches to her veto pen. And some of these vetoes are due to your pressure on the governor's office. Be sure to send a "thank you" to the governor.
HB 2707 is "son of TABOR." This bill would have imposed a ceiling on state spending that was determined by the level of spending in the previous year, adjusted for inflation and population growth. Arizona is at rock-botton right now, and this bill would have locked us into that condition indefinitely into the future. This was the big one, people. Be sure to thank the governor for her veto of this bill.
SB 1593 would have allowed out-of-state companies to write health-insurance policies in Arizona and waived Arizona's 32 insurance mandates, which require insurers to cover a host of treatments and services. This was a "race to the bottom" in health-insurance coverage. The Arizona Department of Insurance has no regulatory jurisdiction over out-of-state health-insurance policies. If you have a claim to make against your insurer, you would have had to pursue it in the state in which the insurance policy originated or in federal court. This is another big one, people. Be sure to thank the governor for her veto of this bill.
SB 1322 was the unduly burdensome bill from Sen. Frank Antenori and Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio which would have required only the cities of Phoenix and Tucson to competitively bid city services that cost more than $500,000. The purpose was to "privatize" city services on the ideological belief that private business always does the job better and cheaper than government. Riiight. Brewer in her veto letter said the bill was "riddled with shortcomings" and was an attempt to micromanage decisions best made at the local level. Antenori is already threatening to bring this bill back again and subject all municipalities in Arizona to his ideological foolishness.
SB 1088 was a strike everything amendment which would have directed the governor to enter into an "Interstate Health Care Freedom Compact" with other states. This bill was the brainchild of health-insurance companies' front-man, Dr. Eric Novack, who gave us Prop. 106, the so-called Health Care Freedom Act in 2010.
This was the second Neoconfederate secessionist "interstate compact" bill vetoed by Governor Brewer. She previously vetoed SB 1592 which would have directed the governor to enter into a Health Care Compact (Compact) on behalf of Arizona with any state lawfully joined in the Compact. A confederacy of states aligned in opposition to "Obamacare" violates Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress can authorize "compacts" among states, and this is normally done for the limited purpose of resource management (like watersheds).
SB 1186 was a "tax corrections" bill that included provisions for the jobs program Governor Brewer signed into law earlier this year, to which the anti-public education supporters of private school tuition tax credits (STOs) attached an amendment once again trying to increase private school tuition tax credits.
Governor Brewer previously vetoed HB 2581 which would have removed the cap on corporate contributions to STOs while increasing the cap on individual contributions. Thanks to the shenanigans of these anti-public education Tea-Publicans, Governor Brewer has said she may have to call a special session to pass a "clean" tax corrections bill.
HB 2700 which would have given state employees a paid holiday on Feb. 14, 2012, and every 100 years thereafter in honor of the day Arizona became a state. It is a once-in-a-lifetime day off... this was just mean-spirited.
HB 2577 and SB 1561 which would have given the Legislature the authority to appropriate noncustodial federal monies (block grants and other federal monies that provide the state with discretion regarding the development, implementation or operation of a program or service) instead of the governor. This is a separation of powers turf war over federal funds. These bills get vetoed every couple of years.
I've been out of town, so I haven't had a chance to digest the lastest Ethnic Studies/MAS news, let alone comment on it, until now.
Because of the bold move by a group of students to chain themselves to the Board members' chairs, the whole world, as the saying goes, is watching. In an uneven power struggle where those in power have the authority to make decisions affecting those without an official voice, the "voiceless" need to shout loudly and effectively to be heard. That's what this group of young people did. Their "shout" was heard as far away as the UK, where the UK Guardian wrote a strongly favorable article about the protest.
The Board cancelled the meeting. It had no other choice unless it wanted to arrest the students, which would probably have led to enough uproar, the meeting would have been cancelled anyway. The meeting is rescheduled for May 5 (Cinco de Mayo? That might be a bad choice) in a larger meeting room. If the meeting is disrupted again, the same choice may repeat itself -- arrest or cancel.
Allow this old English major/English teacher to talk about the symbolism of putting yourselves in a situation where the power structure either has to beat heads, arrest bodies or capitulate. Labor strikers and other protesters do it by picketing in front of a place of business. Gandhi did it by having people lay down on railroad tracks. Vietnam War protesters and anti-nuclear activists did it by chaining themselves to gates leading into war- or nuclear-related facilities. It is a time honored tradition to create a body-to-body confrontation in place of invisible backroom decisions (or public votes where the public can only watch and wait) which have negative effects on people's lives.
Opening yourselves to the possibility of being arrested? Martin Luther King made an art of forcing the law to overreact to his strikes and marches and sit ins, turning oppression that would otherwise have been hidden into a form of theater where the segregationists are forced to become villainous actors in a very public drama.
And chains. Not only does locking yourself to the Board's seats of power -- literally -- say, "We Shall Not Be Moved." The chains create a visual image of a minority group whose treatment by the majority imprisons them, keeping them locked away, in this case, from achieving their dreams of educational and economic success.
I'm not sure what will happen next. But it's very possible those fighting the resolution to make MAS history courses electives will win again in one way or another. It's also possible that if the Board and/or the Superintendent "win" in the short term, it will actually be a loss for them in the longer run.
I think today's Star editorial gets it exactly wrong. It says the protesters are playing into the hands of those who want to end Ethnic Studies (The Star backs Stegeman's resolution, which surely influenced the editorial's opinion). Sure, Horne, Huppenthal, et al, will try to use this. Horne already has. But my feeling is, telling the protesters to act like good little boys and girls in the face of a situation which will make their lives worse is wrong-headed. It's like telling the Civil Rights era "negroes" they were hurting their cause by acting like "uppity n-----s." "Just keep quiet and stay in your place, or you'll just make things worse for yourself." It's like telling the recent Wisconsin protesters to go home and the Democratic legislators to return to the state house rather than doing themselves even more damage. "The Republicans are going to pass that law eventually. Why make things worse for yourself?" I'll try to restrain myself from making comparisons to the uprisings in the Middle East. The comparison would be apt if the scale weren't so wildly different.
What should Pedicone and the Board do now? They should declare they're delaying the discussion and vote on the Resolution until some time in the future. First, I think it's the right thing to do. Second, even though it will feel like a defeat, it will be a mature action that will forestall the likelihood of a serious confrontation, including posible arrests and maybe injury of students TUSD is tasked to help, which would be a far greater defeat. The May 5 meeting will not resolve this issue. The situation will be worse for everyone if the resolution is brought to the floor than if the discussion is tabled for further thought and review.
A final thought. Where the hell is Board member Miguel Cuevas? He's the tie-breaking vote on the Resolution. He has more than enough information to decide how he plans to vote. If he plans to vote against the Resolution, the whole thing would be over since it would be defeated. If he plans to vote for it, he should have the courage to say so. Either way, he needs to make a clear statement and be ready to defend it in public.
Frank(enstein) Antenori is an angry man. Lately he has been terrorizing the villagers. (He bears a remarkable resemblance to Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein.)
Today I read in the Arizona Daily Star this comment from Antenori in response to Gov. Jan Brewer's veto of SB 1332, which would have required the cities of Phoenix and and Tucson (the village Frank despises and loves to terrorize) to competitively bid city services that cost more than $500,000. Brewer nixes requiring bids for certain services in cities:
"Just because you're in a city doesn't mean you're in a little freakin' island, that somehow you don't have to abide by state law," he said.
Tucson loves you too, Frank (not).
Gov. Brewer may want to watch her back. Tedski at R-Cubed reports that Frank’s Got Himself a Sh*t List and she just put her name on it:
(From the Yellow Sheet Report):
If he decides not to run for Congress, Antenori said he’s got some scores to settle at the Capitol. Chief among them are gripes with some unidentified House Republicans who he said killed his bills as the session wound down. The only one he identified – [Kirk] Adams – almost certainly won’t be there next year. Antenori said he was upset the speaker wouldn’t bring S1585 to the floor…But other House Republicans committed worse transgressions, Antenori said. He wouldn’t name names – “They know who they are” – and didn’t explicitly say he wanted to exact revenge, but said he’d enjoy coming back and returning the favor. “I got a little ticked off. I had some bills killed by some folks in the House in a very sneaky, vindictive way after I bent over backwards to accommodate them with amendments. Then they stood up on the floor and killed my bills on final read. I was half tempted to say, ‘Screw running for Congress. I’m coming back to make sure none of your stuff sees the light of day next year,’” he said.
Well I've got a better idea Frank. It's past time that the voters of District 30 recall your egotistical angry and vindictive ass. You are an embarrassment. It's time for you to go. Just file the Recall Frank Antenori Committee already. What are we waiting for?
By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
In a bit of a surprise (to me, anyway), Rep. Andy Tobin (R-LD1) was elected Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.
From the Arizona Republic story written by Mary Jo Pitzl -
The Arizona House of Representativesgot a new leadership lineup Thursday when members elected Rep. Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, as speaker and Republicans chose Rep. Steve Court, R-Mesa as their majority leader.
Tobin replaces Kirk Adams, who resigned from the House and promptly announced his bid for an open congressional seat in the southeast Valley. Adams revealed U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl as his honorary campaign chairman.
The reason that I was a a little surprised by Tobin's elevation to the speaker's post isn't that I think he is less qualified than the other Republicans (hey - I'm a Democrat, so I think *all* of the Rs are unqualified for the job :) ), but he's a rural Republican, and generally, the center of Republican power in AZ is Maricopa County. The House hasn't had a Speaker from a rural district since the late Jake Flake in 2003/2004.
However, the election of Rep. Steve Court as Majority Leader does maintain the rural/urban balance.
The election of Tobin does signal one thing:
Arizona will continue to be the country's embarrassment.
From the press release emailed by the Republican House caucus -
Last – but certainly not least – Speaker Tobin is a devoted Yankee’s [sic] fan...
So, in addition to the anti-immigrant hysteria, the pro-gun fetishism, the "birther" insanity, and more abominations, Arizona has now solidified its position as the America's shame -
It takes two things to make a political lie work: a powerful person or institution willing to utter it, and another set of powerful institutions to amplify it. (emphasis added) The former has always been with us: Kings, corporate executives, politicians, and ideologues from both sides of the aisle have been entirely willing to bend the truth when they felt it necessary or convenient. So why does it seem as if we're living in a time of overwhelmingly brazen deception? What's changed?
Today's marquee fibs almost always evolve the same way: A tree falls in the forest—say, the claim that Saddam Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction," or that Barack Obama has an infernal scheme to parade our nation's senior citizens before death panels. But then a network of media enablers helps it to make a sound—until enough people believe the untruth to make the lie an operative part of our political discourse. (emphasis added)
For the past 15 years, I've spent much of my time deeply researching three historic periods—the birth of the modern conservative movement around the Barry Goldwater campaign, the Nixon era, and the Reagan years—that together have shaped the modern political lie. Here's how we got to where we are.
* * *
There evolved a new media definition of civility that privileged "balance" over truth-telling—even when one side was lying.
* * *
The protective bubble of the "civility" mandate also seems to extend to the propagandists whose absurdly doctored stories and videos continue to fool the mainstream media.
* * *
What's new is the way the liars and their enablers now work hand in glove. That I call a mendocracy, and it is the regime that governs us now.
[R]epublican lawmakers are waging war on organized labor. They're pushing bills to curb, if not eliminate, collective bargaining for public workers; make it harder for unions to collect member dues; and, in some states, allow workers to opt out of joining unions entirely but still enjoy union-won benefits. All told, it's one of the largest assaults on American unions in recent history.
Behind the onslaught is a well-funded network of conservative think tanks that you've probably never heard of. Conceived by the same conservative ideologues who helped found the Heritage Foundation, the State Policy Network (SPN) is a little-known umbrella group with deep ties to the national conservative movement. Its mission is simple: to back a constellation of state-level think tanks loosely modeled after Heritage that promote free-market principles and rail against unions, regulation, and tax increases. By blasting out policy recommendations and shaping lawmakers' positions through briefings and private meetings, these think tanks cultivate cozy relationships with GOP politicians. And there's a long tradition of revolving door relationships between SPN staffers and state governments. While they bill themselves as independent think tanks, SPN's members frequently gather to swap ideas. "We're all comrades in arms," the network's board chairman told the National Review in 2007.
* * *
Founded in 1992 by businessman and Reagan administration insider Thomas Roe—who also served on the Heritage Foundation's board of trustees for two decades—the group has grown to include 59 "freedom centers," or affiliated think tanks, in all 50 states. SPN's board includes officials from Heritage and right-wing charities such as the Adolph Coors and Jacqueline Hume foundations. Likewise, its deep-pocketed donors include all the usual heavy-hitting conservative benefactors: the Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation, which funds the Cato Institute and Heritage; the Castle Rock Foundation, a charity started with money from the conservative Coors Foundation; and the Bradley Foundation, a $540 million charity devoted to funding conservative causes. SPN uses their contributions to dole out annual grants to member groups, ranging from a few thousand dollars to $260,000, according to 2009 records.
According to SPN's website, Roe launched the conservative network "at the urging" of President Reagan himself as a way to shape state-level policy just as Heritage has influenced federal policy. Surveying the political landscape today, Roe's and Reagan's idea couldn't have been more prescient. More than a dozen states are currently considering legislation weakening the clout of organized labor. In many of those states, SPN think tanks have been pushing for similar prescriptions for years via "research" papers, policy recommendations, and talking points that are widely distributed to lawmakers.
* * *
[T]hose on the other side of the fight see the think tanks as part of a broader effort. "This is not a grassroots movement to eliminate collective bargaining," says Al Mance, executive director of the Tennessee Education Association, the state's largest teachers union. "This is a national movement, and it's funded by all the conservative moneyed interests."
Billionaire funded think tanks, the "mendocracy" of the corporate media, and revolving door employment between them: an excess of money has entirely corrupted our politics.
Jon Perr at perrspectives.com has this excellent post taking the media villagers in the "lamestream media" for being complicit in advancing the "big lies" of the right-wing noise machine. After Birthers: 10 More GOP Myths Debunked:
Two statements this month sum up everything you need know about the sad state of American politics and media. Just days after Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl declared his 30 fold error about Planned Parenthood was "not intended to be a factual statement," President Obama decried the "silliness" over his place of birth.
But lost in the laughter over Kyl's unintended moment of candor and the sad spectacle of the President of the United States being forced to reconfirm his U.S. citizenship is this: almost every conservative talking point is not intended to be a factual statement. From President Obama's birthplace and "tax cuts that pay for themselves" to death panels, a government takeover of health care and so much other mythmaking, virtually every article of conservative faith is a fraud. Yet the Republican Party is neither scorned not laughed off the national stage but instead, aided by a complicit media desperate for entertainment value and ratings, is rewarded with power.
While some Americans will nevertheless continue to persist in their Birther fantasies, it is not too late for the media to perform its penance by debunking (or more accurately, redebunking) these 10 GOP myths:
[T]he guy who paid the bills may be about to do his own little version of going Galt as a result:
Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.
"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."
* * *
The film's anemic performance is despite the fact that right-wing political elements played a role in marketing the film, and the film was even adorably opened to the public on April 15th, presumably to take advantage of American anti-tax fervor.
Critics, virtually all of whom also wrote of the film's shortcomings in its first weekend, were more than a little unkind, to be sure. But for the film to tank that badly from week one to week two, something other than a critical conspiracy theory had to be at work, as well.
Aside from Aglialoro's entertaining conspiracy theory, two other reasons for the failure of "Atlas Shrugged" appear considerably more likely. Either (a) the community of people intrigued by libertarian fantasy is quite a bit smaller than Aglialoro anticipated or (b) the word-of-mouth was nonexistent because the film sucked every bit as much as the critics said it did.
Adam Serwer at The Plum Line expresses how I feel about the "Birther" conspiracy nonsense pretty well. Let's just call it for what it is -- racism. This is about people who believe in white privilege and that no black man will ever be good enough to enjoy equal status on merit and ability to any white man. Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan can go f#&k themselves. And NBC should fire them.
Wednesday morning [became] one of the most surreal and ridiculous moments in the history of American politics when the White House decided to release copies of President Barack Obama’s “long form birth certificate,” in an attempt to quiet conspiracy theorists who believe the president was born elsewhere. The president had already released a version certified by the state of Hawaii, but because of the “volume of requests” for the birth certificate, the president asked the state to make an exception and release the original document.
It’s tempting to make this simply about reality television personality Donald Trump, who rocketed to the top of the Republican presidential field by promoting the slander that the president wasn’t born in the United States. But there are a number of other factors that created the current situation. Chief among them is that Trump’s lunacy emboldened conservative media sources to fully embrace birtherism. According to Media Matters, Fox News has spent over two hours promoting false claims about Obama’s birthplace across 54 segments, and only in ten did Fox News hosts challenge those claims. This isn’t just about Trump. All he did was encourage the communications wing of the conservative movement to go into overdrive in an attempt to make birtherism mainstream.
Aside from being one of the most idiotic moments in American political history, this marks a level of personal humiliation no previous president has ever been asked to endure. Other presidents have been the target of crazy conspiracy theories, sure, but few have been as self-evidently absurd as birtherism. None has been so clearly rooted in anxieties about the president’s racial identity, because no previous American president has been black.
This whole situation is an embarrassment to the country. Yesterday Jesse Jackson described birtherism as racial “code,” but there’s nothing “coded” about it. It’s just racism. I don’t mean that everyone who has doubts about the president’s birthplace is racist. Rather, the vast majority have been deliberately misled by an unscrupulous conservative media and by conservative elites who have failed or refused to challenge these doubts.
And birtherism is only one of a number of racially charged conspiracy theories that have bubbled out of the right-wing swamp and have been allowed to fester by conservative elites. Those who have spent the last two years clinging to the notion that the president wasn’t born in the United States, who have alleged that the president wasn’t intelligent enough to write his own autobiography or somehow coasted to magna cum laude at Harvard law, are carrying on new varieties of an old, dying tradition of American racism. Similar accusations dogged early black writers like Frederick Douglass and Phyllis Wheatley, whose brilliance provoked an existential crisis among people incapable of abandoning myths of black intellectual inferiority.
Whether this farce ends or continues is entirely dependent on those who nurtured the rumors in the first place. This is an opportunity for conservative elites, who have finally come around to the possibility that the outsize hatred of the president they’ve cultivated as an asset for the past two years might actually hurt them politically, to purge birtherism from mainstream conservative discourse.
Sadly, those who fostered doubts about the president’s citizenship are unlikely to relent in the face of factual proof, because birtherism was never about the facts. For its most ardent proponents, it was and is about their inability to accept the legitimacy of a black man in the White House. Nothing about the decision to release the president’s birth certificate can change that.
The campaign to recall "King" Russell Pearce is very close to filing. Help put them over the top with a cushion of verified eligible voter signatures on recall petitions by getting out there this weekend to collect the final signatures. Let's make history.
It has been a few weeks now since "King" Russell Pearce said he had receipts for his Fiesta Bowl junkets; we're still waiting to see those receipts. Where are the receipts? (Hint: There are none. He lied.)
Sometimes the Arizona Daily Star shows flashes of its former greatness with an editorial reminiscent of what it used to publish in its glory days. Today is one of of those flashes of greatness. Kudos. Merit system of employment needs to remain:
A bill that essentially scraps the merit system of employment in all county governments (except Maricopa County) makes exactly zero sense to us. It would reopen the door to old-style patronage political governance.
The governor must veto HB 2650.
To begin: Why would the merit system remain in place in one county, but effectively be ended in all the others? It's unclear how that happened, because the bill took its final form in the wee hours of the Legislature's last session before adjournment on April 20. There were no public hearings or debate on the measure as passed.
That's one major problem with the HB 2650. But the other problem also is monumental:
Remember Tammany Hall? The Pendergast machine in Kansas City? The Daley organization in Chicago? All these notorious, often-corrupt political organizations were built atop a foundation of political patronage - insiders taking care of insiders who in turn were beholden to the bosses who protected them.
Remember Waldon V. Burr? He was Pima County sheriff from 1958 to 1971. Toward the end of his tenure, a deputy revealed that he'd paid Burr $600 for his job.
Then following an investigation, in 1971, a grand jury indicted Burr on 22 felony charges, including accusations of taking bribes and selling appointments to Sheriff's Department positions. The charges were dropped when Burr, who died in 1988, resigned.
One of the commanders who had also faced charges in the case, Albert M. Felix, later told the Tucson Citizen that his eight years under Burr were like "a political circus."
"Every two years, you were threatened with the loss of your job unless you supported the sheriff for re-election. It was a monster created by society itself," Felix said.
That's because there was no merit system of employment in place during the Burr years; as a result politics and connections often reigned in making hiring decisions, and in evaluating and promoting employees.
And that's the patronage system that Legislature proposes to reinstate - or at least is inviting its re-emergence with this ill-conceived bill.
* * *
[T]he [merit-]system's protections are designed to ensure that hiring, promotion, demotion and firing decisions are based on performance in public service - to assure that county employees work for the taxpayers, not for bosses to whom they are beholden.
"The whole reason we have merit jobs in the first place is so you don't have people firing competent civil servants and replacing them with political supporters.
* * *
Merit-system protections are unquestionably imperfect. They create bureaucracies; they can stymie creativity.
* * *
We welcome carefully vetted reforms of the merit system. In Pima County, it's been in place since 1974, according to County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry.
But the mirror-image of a merit-based employment system is not the solution to its weaknesses. A wide-open, at-will approach to filling public-service jobs is dangerous - civil-service employment systems were designed to reform abuses. If HB 2650 becomes law, taxpayers would pay the price.
Gov. Jan Brewer has until Monday to act; she must veto HB 2650.
Call Gov. Brewer at 1-(800) 253-0883 (It's toll-free!) or visit her Web page to leave a message to veto HB 2650.
Sen. Steve Smith (TP-Maricopa) was a guest on Hardball with Chris Matthews this afternoon. Just as I predicted earlier today regarding the release of President Obama's birth certificate, this Tea-Publican was not willing to concede the issue and admit that Barack Obama is just as American as he is. Chris Matthews pounded him for his equivocation in this segment of Hardball (around 4:45 mark).
The other day I suggested that a recall should be initiated against anyone who signed on as a cosponsor of the "Birther bill" by Rep. Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley) beginning with the "Birther Queen" herself. (Flashback) New Rule: Mental Competency Exams for Politicians:
The voters of this state should not have to suffer the ignorance of anyone who sponsors this bill. Enough is enough. Just pull the paperwork for a recall of anyone who signs on as a cosponsor of this Birther Queen's bill. Send a statement that "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!" It's time that we use the constitutional remedy of recall to fight the stupid.
Despite this, the "Birther Queen" went ahead and filed her "Birther bill" anyway. 41 Republicans cosponsored her "Birther bill," signifying that they are so delusional as to be mentally incompetent to perform the functions and duties of their office.
For those of you who are attending The Daily Show filming at Tucson's Shanty on 4th Ave this evening, if you say something that you think will make you or your hometown appear ridiculous enough to wind up on The Daily Show, PLEASE REMEMBER to immediately add "but that is not intended to be a factual statement" with a smile and a wink, or air quotes if you must.
The Daily Show correspondents are quick enough to follow your lead. Let's get some more mileage out of Jon Kyl.
AZGOP congressmen vote to dismantle system - and anger a powerful voting bloc
PHOENIX – Arizona seniors don't want their Medicare. Either that, or Arizona's GOP congressmen have just voted to make themselves more vulnerable in 2012.
The budget vote has sparked protests and angry responses from seniors across the nation. Here in Arizona, one-third of voters in the 2010 elections were 65 or older. These congressmen have a lot of explaining to do:
How will Jeff Flake win over senior voters in his U.S. Senate race? Or will he flip-flop on this issue before the primary, as he did on comprehensive immigration reform?
David Schweikert made a campaign-trail commitment to "protecting seniors." Can he explain to them how dismantling Medicare protects Arizona seniors?
Paul Gosar told a tea party crowd on Oct. 3 that he was "looking creatively about how seniors can stay active in the workforce" and that he's "working till the day I die." Is dismantling Medicare his creative solution for Arizona seniors?
Oh, and can Ben Quayle explain how dismantling Medicare for Arizona seniors shows he is "knocking the hell out of Washington"?
"It's only April, but we've already seen enough from this new Republican Congress," said Luis Heredia, Arizona Democratic Party executive director. "These Republicans must be held accountable by the press and public for voting against the quality of life of Arizona seniors. This vote will come back to haunt them."
From Wisconsin to Florida and everywhere in between Republican House Members are under fire from angry constituents at town hall meetings for voting for a budget that slashes critical initiatives for seniors, the young, the poor and working families while preserving subsidies for major oil companies and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Much of the anger being expressed at GOP House Members stems from Republicans’ effort to end Medicare as we know it and require seniors to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to preserve tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
While the President’s plan calls for shared sacrifice, the GOP plan put forward by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and passed by the Republican dominated House, places the burden for getting our fiscal house in order on middle and working class Americans, seniors and young people while protecting the wealthy and big oil. It’s no wonder the GOP budget plan isn’t selling very well back home.
The Arizona Daily Star, like regular clockwork, will publish stories complaining about political campaign signs every election. I guess they have a problem with the First Amendment for anyone but corporate media, who knows?
But recently the Star has been obsessed over campaign signs that have not yet been taken down from the previous election. Today's editorial I believe is the third such mention of this in the Star during the last month or so. Candidates must get rid of illegal campaign signs.
I agree that candidates should be responsible and have their campaigns remove their signs shortly after election day.
What's entirely missing from the Star's complaint about campaign signs, however, is the illegally posted campaign signs for the current election. I have seen campaign signs for Republican mayoral candidate Shaun McClusky posted in the right-of-way along Broadway Boulevard in front of the Williams Center. Those signs may still be there. (Send me a photo, I will add it to this post).
Why does McClusky get a pass from the Star? Doesn't he merit the Star's first article of this election cycle complaining about campaign signs?
Oh, I am definitely going to use this report from the Arizona Daily Star the next time I teach a political science class. This is a textbook example of extreme bias in political reporting.
As you know, I have been encouraging the Star to send one of its Clueless political reporters to interview our local Congressman Raúl Grijalva about the People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus that he co-chairs. The People's Budget has been receiving favorable reviews from serious economists and in the national news media, but barely a mention in the Arizona Daily Star.
Until today. Check out the Star's creative headline writer's handiwork, again: Grijalva gets seniors to talk about Ryan's bill (subheadline: "Budget Blueprint Would Transform Medicare, Medicaid"). "Transform"? This is a GOP talking point -- It would "end" the program.
The reporting is worse than the creative headline. The People's Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is never mentioned in the article. The reporting is all about Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap to America's Ruin, a plan dismissed by serious economists as "not serious." Tea-Publican members of Congress, including Rep. Ryan himself, are facing hostile constituents back home for having voted to end Medicare. This plan is not popular, even with Republicans and self-described Tea Party types in polling.
The closest the reporter comes to mentioning the People's Budget, the plan whose name shall not appear in print in the Arizona Daily Star, is this one papragraph:
Grijalva agreed, urging attendees to suggest Congress explore closing oil and gas subsidies, bring the troops home from the Middle East and raise taxes on the very rich. And he said they shouldn't just contact Republicans, either, but the White House, too, to make sure there isn't any caving in negotiations, such as agreeing to try some of the changes for a time-certain. "Once you open the box, it's going to be difficult to put the lid on it," he said.
The reporter tells you absolutely nothing about the People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Grijalva co-chairs, despite having him available for an interview.
This extremely biased reporting ends with a regular feature of the Clueless political reporting in the Arizona Daily Star, which really pisses me off. The Star does not get their "fair and balanced" quotes from Pima County Republican Party Chair Brian Miller, oh no. The "speed dial" quote always comes from the equally clueless Trent Humphries, who leads one faction of the Tea Party here in Pima County (he does not speak for all the Tea Party groups, and they would be the first to tell you that Humphries does not speak for them).
Here is the gratuitous "money quote" from Teabagger Trent Humphries:
Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries blasted congressional Democrats for punting on a budget blueprint in 2010. Critics at the time speculated Democrats didn't want to deal with deficit figures in an election year. Democrats said it wasn't realistic to pass a budget without first seeing a deficit commission's plans for reducing the deficit.
"The last person I want to hear about budgeting from is Raúl Grijalva," Humphries said. Cuts are going to be necessary. "If we don't pay attention to what's going on now, there won't be anything left later. We have to understand we're going to have a huge problem."
Humphries is full of it, of course, but the reporter does not fact check him. You're shocked, I'm sure.
The House passed the 2011 budget on time and under projections in the summer of 2010. Rep. Grijalva did his job. It is true that the U.S. Senate delayed consideration of the 2011 budget in September, a foolish political move by Sen. Harry Reid with which I vigorously disagreed, opting to wait for the "bipartisan" recommendations from the president's Catfood Commission that failed to produce any recommendations (the chairmen's mark report is not the recommendations that the Catfood Commission was statutorily tasked to produce, we have been over this previously).
The 2011 budget was then held hostage in the U.S. Senate for extension of the Bush tax cuts for the 'two percenters" and, as part of the negotiated deal for other legislation to pass during the lame duck session in December, the budget was carried over to the new Congress because Republican leadership insisted that it wanted to make additional cuts. Both parties were equally to blame.
The Ryan Roadmap to America's Ruin does nothing to reduce the deficit because it gives the savings derived from ending Medicare to tax cuts for corporations and the "two percenters" at the top. Humphries should read the analyses from serious economists that I have been posting here about Ryan's plan, as should any reporters who should be fact checking the nonsense coming from clueless politicians like Trent Humphries.
The "lamestream media" is all atwitter this morning because the White House has released President Barack Obama's "long-form" birth certificate, the "holy grail" to Birther conspiracy theorists fueled by World Nut Daily.
The "lamestream media" has given racist demagogue Donald Trump unlimited access to all of its programming in recent weeks to spew his racial invectives simply because he is a "reality TV show star" celebrity. I hope there is a special place in hell for all those in the "lamestream media."
In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).
When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.
The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting. President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate can be seen here (PDF):
I would love to be able to say this is the STFU! moment to all of those Birther conspiracy theorists who live at World Nut Daily, but we all know better than that. For conspiracy theorists there is always yet another layer of conspiracy to be layered on top of their delusional conspiracy. It has already begun, led by "The Donald" in an interview this morning that I will not dignify here. (Why this racist demagogue still has a job at NBC and is treated as a serious person by the "lamestream media" is beyond comprehension.)
Don't believe me? here are some screen shots of the headlines at World Nut Daily this morning after the White House announcement.
State House Speaker Kirk Adams will leave the chamber's top leadership post, his spokesman said Tuesday, and representatives will pick a new speaker to serve out the rest of Adams' two-year term.
Adams did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but spokesman Daniel Scarpinato confirmed that Adams planned to step down as speaker Thursday.
Scarpinato declined to say whether Adams also plans to resign his state House seat.
The move isn't really a surprise, as the worst-kept secret in Arizona politics is that Adams is going to run for Congress next year.
Things *could* get interesting if Adams tries to hang on to his House seat - while Arizona's "resign-to-run" law is all but toothless, it could still impact his ability to raise money between now and the beginning of 2012.
I expect that he will ultimately resign from the House, not just give up his speakership, because regardless of what the district maps look like, he is likely to face significant primary opposition for the open seat.
He's smart enough to know better than to give the other candidates a big head start, and the duties of even a rank-and-file member of the legislature could get in the way of serious campaigning.
Anyway, House Republicans are expected to choose Adams' successor as speaker on Thursday. The Republic article speculated that they will choose either Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8), chair of House Appropriations, or Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R-LD22). Two other names that could possibly percolate in watercooler talk are Reps. Andy Tobin (R-LD1), the current House majority leader or Jim Weiers (R-LD10), a former speaker.
Still, the Republic's speculation is probably in the ballpark - both Kavanagh and Farnsworth are viewed as ambitious, having aspirations to higher office. A speakership entry on the political resume could definitely help either one in that regard.
Want to see a Daily Show taping in Tucson? Thursday at 5pm at the Shanty on 4th Ave. Daily Show correspondents will be filming an upcoming episode on the movement to separate Southern Arizona from wing-nut dominated Maricopa AZ. Hoist a few for our new state! Maybe get your mug on TV.
Then come back to the Shanty on Sunday to have drink with Jon Rothschild, Democratic candidate for Mayor (and who knows, maybe the first governor of Baja AZ?) at the weekly Drinking Liberally gathering.
This is an argument I have every two years with organizations that endorse candidates for the legislature on education issues, including the teachers'unions and the author of the study below, the Arizona Education Network. I always hear the same argument that "it's a safe Republican district and we have to work with them, so we will endorse the Republican incumbent." How's that working out for ya?
Every two years GOP candidates will send out glossy campaign fliers telling you how much they support education, and run television and radio ads telling you how much they support education. What they fail to disclose is that they are systematically gutting public education and trying to privatize education to benefit for-profit businesses, like the STO organizations that Sen. Yarbrough profits from.
Of Arizona's 90 legislators, 59 voted against public education funding 100 percent of the time.
"We encourage Arizona voters to look closely at this list," said Jen Darland, an Arizona Education Network researcher who tracks education legislation. "These are the legislators who are voting to close our schools; cram children into super-sized classrooms; fire teachers, librarians and counselors; deny children access to all-day kindergarten; strip schools of basics like paper, books and pencils and make our universities unaffordable for middle-class students."
Legislators say they had no other option but to cut $454 million from our schools, community colleges and universities - bringing the three-year total in cuts to $1.3 billion. However they had other options, including following the Governor's original budget proposal, which had $116 million less in education cuts.
In addition, legislators could work to close the more than $10 billion in tax loopholes that prevent the state from raising more revenue. By just closing the luxury tax loopholes, which exempt users of luxury services, such as spa treatments, from paying taxes and equalizing the state liquor tax, the state could bring in $438 million more a year.
Adding insult to injury, legislators voted for TABOR (HB 2720), locking in the current recession-level cuts to education, preventing our schools, colleges and universities from rebounding as the economy improves.
For more information on AEN and the Legislative report, visit their website here.
Go to the jump to read the list of state Legislators who voted against education funding 100 percent of the time in 2011.
I warned you at the time that the Prop. 113 "secret ballot" referendum that the legislature sneaked onto the ballot in a special session, after the "Save Our Secret Balot" ("SOS") initiative, Prop. 108, was ruled ineligible by the court, was preempted by federal law.
This was an anti-union "turn out our wingnut base" ballot measure that is preempted by federal labor law. Voters approved it anyway in 2010.
The federal National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) immediately stepped in. Negotiations for a settlement have fallen through. NLRB will sue Ariz., SD over union laws:
The National Labor Relations Board says it will move ahead with lawsuits seeking to invalidate state constitutional amendments in Arizona and South Dakota that require workers to hold secret ballot elections before a company can be unionized.
The move comes after months of negotiations that failed to reach a settlement with attorneys general for the two states, according to an April 22 letter from the agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon.
* * *
Solomon told state officials he has directed staff to file the lawsuits against Arizona and South Dakota "shortly." He claims the amendments conflict with current federal law that gives employers the option to recognize a union if a majority of workers simply sign cards, a process known as "card check."
Solomon also claims the state amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That clause says federal law prevails if there is a conflict between state and federal law.
Demonstrating, once again, that he is unqualifed to serve as Arizona's Attorney General, Tom Horne said the NLRB had no legal basis to file a lawsuit.
"There's no statute that says people can't have secret ballot elections, so there's no preemption," Horne said.
Tom Horne clearly is outside his comfort zone of legal knowledge and expertise. I would suggest that he study federal labor law before making such a definitive - and entirely incorrect - statement of law.
And it would be a good rule of thumb for reporters to call an expert in an area of law on which Tom Horne comments to put a legal expert's opinion in your reporting to balance his comnments, instead of just giving him the freedom to say whatever he wants without challenge.
The Arizona AFL-CIO has issued the following press release:
Federal Labor Board Files Suit Against the State of Arizona Over Unconstitutional Anti-Union Law
Arizona AFL-CIO Praises Tough Action Backing Rights of Arizona Workers
Phoenix, AZ – On Friday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced it would pursue legal action against the State of Arizona to invalidate a 2010 state constitutional amendment (Proposition 113) that restricted the rights of Arizona workers to form unions through majority sign-up, or card check. Rebekah Friend, Executive Director and Secretary/Treasurer of the Arizona AFL-CIO, issued the following statement on the NLRB’s announcement:
“Arizonans deserve a path to unionization that is fair and free of coercion. But because corporate CEOs want to make it harder for workers to bargain for better wages and benefits, they mounted yet another political attack on our rights at work with this unlawful constitutional amendment banning unionization by majority sign-up.
“The big business groups and anonymous, out-of-state donors backing this law never intended to protect workers’ freedoms. After all, these same groups pushed the repeal of collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin and Ohio. The ballot measure that attempted to ban card check was merely a political stunt that took advantage of Arizona’s referendum process to promote a national anti-worker agenda.
“We knew from the start that this anti-union amendment was superseded by federal law, and I am pleased to see that the NLRB will be continuing its defense of workers’ rights in Arizona. Attorney General Tom Horne knows as well that this law is unconstitutional and cannot stand, but continues to defend this anti-union law on behalf of his corporate campaign supporters. I urge Horne to drop this charade and save valuable taxpayer resources for pursuing crimes like mortgage fraud, which continue to affect thousands of Arizona homeowners.
“More than ever, Arizonans need better wages and benefits, job security and safer workplaces. The Arizona AFL-CIO urges business groups to stop their political attacks on unions and work together with us to restore the American middle class.”
The Arizona AFL-CIO is a voluntary federation of labor unions in the State of Arizona, representing affiliates with over 185,000 members. To learn more, visit azaflcio.org.
I suppose I should consider it a moral victory that the Arizona Daily Star published today the opinion by Paul Krugman that I posted about yesterday. Still no interview of our local Congressman Raúl Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus which drafted the People's Budget. I will keep trying to keep them honest.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein was a guest on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on Monday night to discuss the People's Budget. His only real criticism is that it does not go far enough -- Klein would like to see an "energy tax" (carbon tax) in the plan. Now who is being overly optimistic?
The legislation would let most of the Bush tax cuts expire — a major difference from Obama’s budget, which would extend most of the Bush tax cuts — and add a few new brackets for millionaires and multimillionaires, not to mention a stronger and more progressive estate tax. Capital gains and dividend income would be taxed as normal income, corporate taxes would be raised, and a financial transaction tax would be passed. The payroll cap would be raised on the employee side and abolished on the employer side, taking care of most of Social Security’s shortfall, and the Defense Department would see $1.8 trillion in cuts over 10 years. There’d be a public option added to the health-care system and Medicare would get more power to negotiate drug prices. There’s room for $1.4 trillion in new investments, and according to the HPC’s numbers, their budget does more deficit reduction over the next 10 years than either Obama or Ryan’s budget. Paul Krugman calls it “the only major budget proposal out there offering a plausible path to balancing the budget.”
So does it all add up? Sort of, said the experts I consulted. “In the same way that Ryan’s plan is useful for showing how you could do this/what one would have to do on if you do it all on the spending side,” says William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, “the House Progressive Budget shows how one might do this/what one would have to do to do almost all of it on the tax side of the ledger.” Gale thought their proposal probably went a bit far in new upper-income taxes, and treating capital gains as normal income might erect a barrier to investment. It would have been wiser, he thought, to be even a bit bolder in terms of new taxes and propose either an energy tax or a value-added tax. “Still,” he said, “I think it would be interesting to get this plan out in front of the American people and see how they react to it versus Ryan.”
Len Burman, who previously led the Treasury’s tax analysis division and is now at Syracuse University and the Urban Institute, had a broadly similar, though slightly more negative, take. “Glad to see more progressivity, but there’s little real tax reform and really, really high tax rates on high-income people,” he says. “I doubt that many capital gains would be realized at a 49% tax rate (or even a 45% one).” He worried that the various provisions would lead to a large increase in tax evasion strategies, including more self-employment, gifts, an increase in C corporations and a lot more offshore financial dealings. He thought that once you added all that in — and particularly once you considered the way the various taxes would stack and interact — the plan would raise less money than the House Progressive Caucus assumed. “I wish they’d thought more about simplification and reforming the tax expenditures that they retain,” he said. “The plan could have been made more progressive and raised more revenue without raising top tax rates.” He suggested looking at the Bipartisan Policy Center’s planfor a model of how to do a lot more tax reform while raising revenues.
Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell University, is one of the more innovative tax thinkers I know. In particular, I’ve always been partial to his proposal for a progressive consumption tax (pdf). So I ran the plan by him, as well. “The progressive budget proposal is of course an enormous improvement over the bizarre Ryan budget,” he said, “which for all its chest thumping about facing up to the hard choices, does nothing — absolutely nothing — to reduce long-run deficits.” But like Gale and Burman, Frank wanted to see more simplification and reform. In particular, he wanted more attention given to what we tax with an eye toward two-fers: raising more money off of things we want less of. . . “Taxing such activities kills two birds with one stone: It generates much needed revenue, and it curtails activities that cause more harm than good. Because these taxes make the economic pie bigger, it makes no sense to object that we can’t afford them.” He recommended this piece (pdf) for more on those ideas.
So even if you were going to rely heavily on taxes, the particular set of taxes recommended by the House Progressive Caucus probably isn’t the set you’d rely on. But Burman, Gale and Frank all thought the proposal compared very favorably to Ryan’s budget. For one thing, its savings ramp up more quickly. Ryan puts his biggest reforms off until 2022. The House Progressive Budget begins almost immediately. For another, it tries to balance the budget in a largely progressive fashion — a worthwhile goal given that the current deficits are largely the product of the financial crisis and a set of tax cuts that were embarrassingly tilted toward upper-income Americans. The House Progressive Budget is also willing to make some deep changes in the Defense Department and block off some new money for much-needed investments. Gale noted that if you think of Ryan’s budget as one end of the spectrum and this budget as the other, Obama’s proposal is probably closer to Ryan’s than to the House Progressive Caucus’s.
I’d add that over the long-term, this budget isn’t particularly strong on health care. A public option would be helpful, and so too would letting Medicare bargain down the price of pharmaceuticals. But I’d have liked to see much more radical ideas for controlling health-care costs. [Klein's personal favorite ideas for controlling health-care costs.]
* * *
But overall, this is a smart contribution to the negotiations, in part because it’s organized very intelligently. It’s a menu of separate — and separable — options for reducing the budget deficit in a progressive fashion, rather than one or two massive ideological efforts to remake the safety net. If Ryan had been writing the House Progressive Budget, it would’ve proposed single-payer health care and a value-added tax and called it a day. The House Progressive Caucus didn’t do that — and they were smart not to.
Instead, they designed their budget to make it easy for the negotiators to lift some of their proposals into a final deal. It’d be simple to grab the new millionaire’s brackets out of this budget, or snatch some the defense savings and the public option, without embracing everything else. That also makes it easy for progressives to choose a few of these items and really organize behind them. The measure of this budget’s success won’t be in whether it passes, but whether a few of its specific suggestions are able to shoulder their way into the conversation.
In other words, the People's Budget is the appropriate starting point for any serious discussion about balancing the federal budget, not the Ryan Roadmap to America's Ruin nor President Obama's less aggressive approach to the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Ezra Klein has two related posts worth reading: why the media often ignores the best budget proposals; and a reminder: The public option makes insurance cheaper, RyanCare makes it more expensive.
Since the Court of Appeals ruled this week that the citizens of Tucson -- a Charter City whose City Charter takes legal precedence over acts of the legislature on matters of purely local concern, i.e., local elections -- are permitted to conduct partisan elections as their City Charter provides, SB 1331 is in direct conflict with the holding of the Court of Appeals.
Should Gov. Brewer sign this bill into law, the City Attorney should immediately file a lawsuit to challenge the law on the same basis of the case he just won a victory in the Court of Appeals over the equally authoritarian "Paton's law."
City Attorney Mike Rankin says he will advise the City Council that the ruling applies equally to the bill awaiting the governor's signature. City won't scrap all-mail vote:
City officials say that if Gov. Jan Brewer signs a bill outlawing Tucson's planned all-mail election, the city will do it anyway.
SB 1331 says cities, towns and school districts may conduct a mail-in ballot election only for nonpartisan elections.
Because Tucson is the only city in Arizona that holds partisan elections, it is the only one affected by the bill sponsored by Republican state Rep. Ted Vogt of Tucson, whose brother is a candidate in the upcoming city election.
The bill would effectively mean Tucson could not have an exclusively mail election, even though the mayor and City Council earlier this month voted to move in that direction. Council members, noted that 65 percent of voters already cast mail ballots in the 2009 city election and the 2010 general election, suggested the move would save money, increase turnout and make it easier for more people to vote.
* * *
City Attorney Mike Rankin said he will advise the City Council that the ruling applies equally to the bill awaiting the governor's signature.
"It could result in more litigation. That wouldn't be a surprise," Rankin acknowledged. "But it is going to be my position we have the charter authority to do this and the Legislature is overstepping its authority."
Rankin points to the recent court ruling saying lawmakers can't force the city to strip party labels off its ballot. In a ruling that came the same day the Legislature closed up shop for the session, the court said how the city runs elections is a matter of local - not statewide - concern.
Rep. Ted Vogt responded with a series of bullshit statements not worth dignifying here. He got caught red-handed trying to sneak through a law in the dead of night to override the Tucson City Charter to try to benefit his brother who is running for Tucson City Council. Both brothers should be soundly defeated for their blatant abuse of our democratic process and disregard for the rule of law.
Baja Arizonans have had enough of this authoritarian abuse at the hands of Tea-Publican tyrants serving our imperialist colonial rulers from the state of Maricopa. Our colonial oppressors are stripping us of our basic freedoms of democratic elections, local control and self-determination to try to force us into submission. They are oppressing Tucson and Pima County from the Capitol in Phoenix. The state of Maricopa may be trying to swallow us whole, but Baja Arizonans are not going down without a fight to defend our freedom!
CNN's John King interviewed Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) about the "Birther bill" she vetoed last week. I am surprised she ventured outside of the protective bubble of FAUX News Fraudcasting.
In the full interview that I watched (I cannot find a copy) John King went on to ask Gov. Brewer about her position on whether she will proceed in court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court of Arizona in striking down most of SB 1070, and Brewer of course responded that Arizona would proceed in court.
Brewer also continued to demagogue on her reasons for wrapping herself in the hatred of SB 1070 and fear mongering over immigration last year in order to get elected governor. Listening to Jan Brewer and other Tea-Publican candidates for office last year tell it, there was a "horde" of "illegal" immigrants "invading" Arizona causing a "crime wave" in Arizona.
Wild foot chases and dust-swirling car pursuits may be the adrenaline-pumping stuff of recruitment efforts, but agents on the U.S.-Mexico border these days have to deal with a more mundane occupational reality: the boredom of guarding a frontier where illegal crossings have dipped to record low levels.
Porous corridors along the 2,000-mile border do remain, mostly in the Tucson area, requiring constant vigilance. But beefed-up enforcement and the job-killing effects of the Great Recession have combined to reduce the flood of immigrants in many former hot spots to a trickle.
Apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexican border overall dropped from 2000 to 2010, from 1.6 million to 448,000, and almost every region has lonely posts where agents sit for hours staring at the barrier, "watching the fence rust" as some put it.
"When the traffic stops ... of course it's going to be difficult for the agents to stay interested," said Supervisory Agent Ken Quillin, from the agency's Yuma sector. "I understand guys have a tough time staying awake. ... They didn't join the border patrol to sit on an X," Quillin added, using the slang term for line watch duty.
Read the whole article. It makes Jan Brewer and others who demagogue on immigration look ridiculous.
Paul Eckerstrom, co-chair of Start Our State, i.e., the Baja Arizona as the 51st state movement, was the guest speaker at a meeting of the Saguaro Eastside Democrats on Monday night. Eckerstrom announced that The Daily Show would be in Tucson Wednesday and Thursday of this week to film an episode on Baja Arizona for The Daily Show.
Eckerstrom did not disclose whom the correspondents are from The Daily Show coming to Baja Arizona.
Arizona has been a target rich comedy environment for The Daily Show because of our lunatic fringe Tea-Publican legislature and governor. The Daily Show has even created an "Arizona" tag for all of its video episodes mentioning Arizona. Videos Tagged "Arizona" | The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Comedy Central.
So let's be on our best behavior people. Let's be clear that "the crazy" comes from our bullying neighbor to the north, the state of Maricopa. It is the Tea-Publicans who voted for the long discredited pre-Civil War theories of nullification of federal laws and secession from the United States.
Baja Arizona wanted no part of this. Baja Arizonans are loyal Americans. Baja Arizona is following the example of West Virginia in the Civil War and is exercising its constitutional prerogative under Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution for the legal process of partition and separation from the state of Arizona:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress" (emphasis added).
The non-binding resolution that Start Our State wants to put on the ballot in 2012 is simply a petition to the Arizona legislature and the Congress for consent to establish our own state. It is our way of saying that we have had enough of "the crazy" from our bullying neighbor to the north, the state of Maricopa.
Reminder: Blog for Arizona is running a contest for you to design the new flag of the state of Baja Arizona (or whatever state name is chosen). Flying Our Freak Flag - Blog For Arizona:
We thought it might be fun to ask BlogFor(Baja&Alto)Arizona.com readers to help design our new State Flag. . .
Please submit your designs, or design ideas (we don't expect everyone to be a graphic designer) to BlogForArizona@gmail.com with the subject line 'FLAG CONTEST' (or something reasonably similar) by June 1st, 2011 and our staff, in consultation with the leaders of the Start Our State movement, will select a winner. . .
For those of you planning to attend the PDA meeting Monday night in Tucson, Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly addressed The People's Budget last week:
This week, the budget proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus is suddenly getting some attention, and I'm glad. Does it stand any chance of becoming law? Of course not. But does Paul Ryan's plan have a shot at passing? Despite gaining House approval, it does not.
Matt Miller got the ball rolling a few days ago, noting in passing that the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget plan "wins the fiscal responsibility derby" against its competing proposals because "it reaches balance by 2021 largely through assorted tax hikes and defense cuts."
This one sentence seemed to have let much of the political world that the CPC plan exists. The Economistnoted today:
Have you ever heard of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan? Neither had I. The caucus's co-chairs, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, released it on April 6th. The budget savings come from defense cuts, including immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, which saves $1.6 trillion over the CBO baseline from 2012-2021. The tax hikes include restoring the estate tax, ending the Bush tax cuts, and adding new tax brackets for the extremely rich, running from 45% on income over a million a year to 49% on income over a billion a year.
Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programs for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defense spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people. Mr Ryan has been fulsomely praised for his courage. The Progressive Caucus has not.
I'm not really sure what "courage" is supposed to mean here, but this seems precisely backwards.
Bingo. Trying to restore tax rates to levels that were pretty normal in the America John Boehner grew up in takes some courage, because it challenges the powerful and the elite to sacrifice. Republicans are doing the opposite -- as President Obama put it the other day, "Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless and don't have lobbyists or don't have clout."
Paul Krugman also had an item on this today, noting some of the policy specifics.
The CPC plan essentially balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall mainly on higher incomes, although not just on the top 2%: super-brackets for very high incomes, elimination of deductions, taxation of capital income as ordinary income, and — the part that would be most controversial — raising the cap on payroll taxes.
None of this is economically outlandish. Marginal tax rates on high incomes would rise substantially -- enough to make even liberal economists slightly uncomfortable -- but the historical evidence suggests that the incentive effects wouldn't be too severe. Overall taxes as a share of GDP aren't given, but they would clearly remain well below European levels.
Also note, the CPC numbers add up -- which is more than we can say for the House Republican plan -- actually dealing with the problem conservatives claim to care about.
In case this isn't obvious, it's important to have competing ideas in the larger conversation.
* * *
There are a variety of credible alternatives, and Obama's vision may represent the center, but there's a sensible, sound liberal approach that deserves to be in the mix.
The Star's editorial came out in favor of the resolution TUSD Board President Mark Stegeman will present at the Tuesday Board meeting. The spirit of the editorial is reasonable, but there is a huge flaw in logic similar to Stegeman's -- the idea that you simultaneously downgrade the MAS history courses to electives while you begin the process of making the standard American History courses more inclusive. The result: the changes to MAS go into effect in September, and the proposed changes to the American History courses go into effect . . . whenever. They will happen in dribs and drabs over the years, moving through study committees and public hearings. The quality of the results is far from guaranteed.
It makes no sense to gut MAS, with its proven record of success, based on a loose promise of better core courses sometime in the undetermined future.
In a separate article, Alexis Huicochea presents an accurate picture of the current situation with MAS and Stegeman's resolution, and it lends an insight into Stegeman's flawed logic regarding the negative impact of making the MAS history course an elective. He admits fewer students will take the class as an elective, but he believes the students who need it will still take it.
Though Stegeman admits there will likely be a decline in enrollment as a result, he doesn't see it as the demise of the program.
"We've heard from all kinds of students how wonderful these courses are," Stegeman said. "If the students believe that to be true, those who really are getting something out of it will choose to take it."
My sense from that statement is, Stegeman is far removed from the thought process of less-than-academically-inclined high school students. That's not surprising, since he's a university prof and was likely a conscientious, high achieving high school student. So let me shed some light, based on my experience teaching low achieving students and struggling to motivate them, on the differences between the UA students Stegeman interacts with and the struggling students "who really are getting something out of [MAS]."
University profs often complain about the poor motivation, study habits and skills of their students, yet they are drawn from the top ranks of high school grads. When you move to students who graduate with reasonable grades but don't have the academic ability it takes to go to UA as well as those who barely graduate and those who drop out, you're talking about problems with motivation, study habits and skills university profs have no concept of.
To imagine students who need an academic and motivational boost will choose to burden themselves with extra work in the form of a second, elective history class shows a lack of understanding of these students. A major problem for these students is, they are not making good educational choices. If they were, they would be paying careful attention in class, doing their homework and generally maximizing their academic potential -- more like the students who make it to UA. The first task with low achieving students is to place them in a situation where they are given that extra motivation, that extra push, to help them come closer to realizing their potential. If you put an obstacle in their path by making MAS an elective they have to take on top of the required history class, you're going to eliminate many of the students who would most benefit from the program.
Stegeman is an educator, but he works with a different group of students than the garden variety high school student, let alone those who struggle to pass AIMS or to graduate. He and other Board members should consider the value of the MAS program as it currently stands and the damage they will do if they vote to turn the history courses into electives rather than making them core courses. They should vote against the resolution.
Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.
BforAZ Merchandise:
Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.
Recent Comments