Blog For Arizona

Pro-Coal and Pro-Nuclear Congressional Energy Bills on Crash Course with Environment, U.S. Economy and the Public

This may seem like blasphemy: the House Bill on energy known as The American Clean Energy Act is the most detrimental bill the House has passed since the Patriot Act. Like the Patriot Act, it is not what it says it is. It should never become law.

        It is not a clean energy bill.
        It is not a pro-solution climate bill.
        It is not a pro-American bill.

        It is an energy giveaway bill.
        It is a bill that deletes Clean Air Act authority for the Environmental Protection Agency over nearly 50 coal plants.
        It is a bill that sets up an unfair energy tax system called cap & trade tax (CTT).
        It is a bill that sets up CTT, that doubles as a financial derivative, which would be responsible for economic deterioration of U.S. economy, just like the CDOs and CDSs that helped cause the current economic downturn. 

Further, the Senate bill versions are just as bad or worse.

At issue is a battle that has a huge bearing on the United States and world’s environment, economy and social order. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACESA, has passed the U.S. House and is now in a number of different forms before the Senate.  With the change in the administration and increased majorities in Congress, we had all hoped that the 111th Congress would act fast to implement a new climate bill to start controlling our pollution output like carbon dioxide.

The House Bill (HR 2454), however, is replete with problems, as are the Senate versions currently being drafted. While it is significant that a house of Congress has, for the first time, passed a climate bill, it is also important that the bill that Congress ultimately enacts imposes a tax on energy in a way that will discourage excess energy use.  That is because energy use analysis indicates that price increases are the most effective way to curtail energy use, improve the way we use energy and decrease pollution.

THE PROBLEMS WITH ACESA IN ITS CURRENT FORM

There are numerous problems with the 1428-page House Bill,(1) so I do not attempt to address all of them.  Rather, I will highlight three main areas that need to be corrected in a final bill if it is to be effective: 

– ACESA implements cap & trade tax and financial derivative system instead of a simple carbon tax.

Emissions trading, also known as “cap &trade” is a way of controlling pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.  Under “cap & trade” the government sets a limit, or “cap” on the total amount of a pollutant that can be emitted.  Companies or other groups are issued permits that give them the right to emit a certain percentage of that amount of pollutant (“credits” or “allowances”).  The total amount of credits or allowances cannot exceed the cap. 

Companies that need to increase their emission allowance can buy credits from other companies who don’t need all of their credit because they pollute less.  This transfer is the “trade.”  Thus, companies have a financial incentive to reduce the amount of pollution they emit and a disincentive to exceed their set allowance.

While cap & trade is a tax in that the U.S. Government will be collecting auction fees/taxes, it is also a financial derivative, in that the certificates issued through auction will derive their value from the sold “right” to pollute.

ACESA includes a cap & trade system where the certificates would be issued through an auction.  By requiring companies to buy their certificates, the government forces them to pay for the “right” to pollute.  When he was campaigning for the presidency, candidate Obama promised that under his cap and trade plan, 100% of the certificates would be auctioned—in other words, no one would get a free ride to pollute. 

Unfortunately, the house bill only requires 15% of the emissions certificates to be auctioned,  or paid for,  during the first year.  That figure will increase to over 70% by 2030.  Obviously, this reduced auction amount is a major disappointment to those of us who want to see polluters, not the public, bear the financial burden of their pollution.  

The reduced auction amount isn’t the only problem with the cap & trade provision in the bill.  Although cap and trade systems can be effective they are also susceptible to abuse.  Opportunists are able to take advantage of the complexity of the mechanism to “game the system.”  To curb this potential problem, the House Bill sets up an oversight committee under the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to regulate hedge fund and other derivative-related aspects of cap & trade.  However, it is only a cursory oversight arrangement and there is legitimate concern that it would not prevent market manipulation , which in turn could lead to a new economic bubble in this new speculative market and ultimately hurt the U.S. economy. Cap & trade tax schemes have already been exposed in Europe.(2)

All of these problems with the cap & trade approach could be eliminated by implementing a simple carbon tax.(3)

ACESA Eliminates EPA Clean Air Act Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

The House Bill is also problematic because it proposes to strip EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.(4)  This authority was only recently recognized by the United States Supreme Court, and EPA is only now moving toward exercising it; however, the House Bill would reverse that progress. 

At least one analysis of the House Bill indicates that this proposed de-authorization of the EPA would mean that 47 coal plants will be able to be built without EPA regulation.  Clearly, that outcome is contrary to any meaningful goal to reduce carbon emissions. 

ACESA Funds Coal and Nuclear Energy More Heavily than Increased Efficiency and Renewables

Finally, the proposed funding under the bill for new technologies has misplaced priorities and incentives.  Under the House Bill, $60 billion would be allocated for “clean coal” carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. CCS is a technology that would capture the carbon coming out of the coal stack and then sequester it so that it does not get into the atmosphere.

There are a number of different possibilities in the process of being developed, but none has been demonstrated on a commercial scale, and it is not clear that CCS will be economically practical.  Yet, this is the largest chunk of money directly listed in the bill for any one technology. While energy efficiency and renewable energies get $90 billion by 2025, or $6 billion a year or so, that is only a fraction of the amount that coal and nuclear energy will get.

One of the Senate bills includes loan incentives that would give nuclear and coal CCS hundreds of billions of dollars in aid.  The decision to disproportionately encourage these two technologies with financial aid and incentives in a “clean energy” bill is simply baffling.  Keep in mind that nuclear has been shown to be an uneconomical technology, and that coal CCS, even if it works, will lead to much more coal mining. The truth is, there is no clean coal, nor would any reasonable person consider nuclear energy a “clean” fuel given its significant waste problem. 

Yet the bill’s definition of clean energy is so loose, under it coal CCS and nuclear energy will be considered “clean.”  And here’s the kicker. These two technologies, coal CCS and nuclear, are so expensive (in the range of 25-35 cents per kilowatt-hour for new units) that if we put our dollars into them, they will suck so many dollars away from energy efficiency and renewables (in the range of 2-25 cents per kilowatt-hour) that there would not be enough money to solve the climate solutions we desperately need.

In summary, here is what needs to happen to make these bills a positive force: 1) restructure cap & trade tax or replace it with a simple carbon tax; 2) do not remove the Clean Air Act authority from the EPA; and 3) re-design this bill to fund the technologies that are truly clean.

You can call your senators and stress how irresponsible the cap & trade system is. If the energy giveaway bill passes the Senate, you can then call your Representatives and Senators to ask them to block the reconciliation of these two bills.

-----------------
Note: An earlier version of this article appeared in the Sierra Club Rincon Group newsletter, under my new appointment as Energy Subcommittee Chair for this Group.

1Available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090701/hr2454_house.pdf
2See http://carbontax.org
3Associated Press article in Arizona Daily Star (AP), Fight Against Global Warming Spawning New Type of Crime: Carbon-Permit Fraud, 8/22/09, p. A12, http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/news/305938.php
4See analysis at http://www.psr.org/take-action/senate-letter-climate-legislation.html

Democrats' Citizenship Will Be Tested - oh, and Mike Returns

by Michael Bryan

The Obama Administration will test Democrats' in ways that being the loyal opposition during the lost Bush years never could.

We were righteous. We were powerless. We were vindicated. We were innocent. Now, with Obama in the Oval and Democrats in utter control of Congress, we are none of those things. Suddenly, the Democratic Party and its elected officials can shape the world; the question now arises, what happens when what is created is not to our liking?

We knew what to do when the detested Bush and his party of greed and hypocrisy were in charge: march, organize, shout, condemn, etc. But what shall Democrats do when they disagree whole-heartedly with what the Democratic caucus and President Obama are up to?

The temptation is to become apologists for their actions. Research has shown clearly that partisans, confronted with facts that demonstrate hypocrisy by one of their own, will rationalize it away - smooth it over mentally to make it more comfortable. It is much harder to remain open-minded, cleave to your values, and condemn those actions.

Rationalizing away uncomfortable facts is what partisans and politicians do. Making compromises, seeing the other side, achieving what seems possible: this is the role of politicians.

Following your conscience, articulating marginalized (i.e., rationalized away) views, and demanding what you believe is right - even if what is right seems impossible: this is the role of a citizen. Many of us who believed naively that everything would be fine once Democrats were in charge are now going to have our ability to put our citizenship ahead of our partisanship severely tested.

AfPak, detainees, torture prosecutions, Abu photos, Congressional investigations, mountaintop removal, etc.: there is fault out there to find.

There are many very difficult problems that have been left for our creaky and balky political system to deal with. And like it or not, fair or not, Democrats have been left with the responsibility and duty to try to address these many complex and intractable problems. I believe that, within the constraints of their roles, our representatives in Congress and our President will attempt in good faith to resolve these many problems - and frequently they will get it dead wrong. What to do?

I believe that those of who have the interest and inclination to follow public affairs should react as citizens, not just as partisans. We should not rationalize and defend. We should oppose, and explain why.

I write this defense of citizenship because, obviously, I find myself frequently in disagreement with the decisions taken by the elected representatives of my party, including my President. That doesn't mean I don't support my party, or that I wish others to take power instead; it means that as a citizen, I feel it my duty to explain why I think they are wrong, and not to rationalize away my discomfort at finding myself at odds with my faction.

With this ideal of citizenship foremost on my mind, I once again take up my pen. Some of you might have noticed that I have written infrequently on this blog over the past several months. The reason is that I discovered, in the rudest, most abrupt fashion, that I have a heart condition. I needed all my energy to heal, return to normal life, and adjust to managing the problem. Even now, daily life frequently takes everything I have, leaving nothing for this forum. But I hope that as I recover and gain momentum, I will more frequently be a contributor to this forum, rather than mainly an enthusiastic and grateful reader.

David Safier and Arizona Blue Meanie, along with the occasional contributions of a few others, have exceeded my wildest expectations. They have more than filled in, they have transformed and enriched this blog. My most heart-felt thanks to them. Readership is higher than it has ever been while not in the thick of an election cycle. If fact, I imagine that, to many readers, they are the blog - not I. And that's wonderful.

It is perhaps the most satisfying thing about any endeavor to see it grow beyond you. This blog is no longer just about me; it is a forum that has found purpose beyond merely serving as a conduit for my own opinions. I welcome and embrace that. Of course, my opinion will still appear here, but I hope that so will those of others who are deeply concerned about public policy and have a desire to reach out to Arizona progressive community.

A Triumphal Whisper for All Democrats

by Michael Bryan

In ancient Rome, when a victorious general would parade triumphantly through the streets atop his chariot, displaying the booty and enemies he had captured in a successful campaign, all the citizens hailing him as "Imperator," a little slave child would perch behind him whispering continually in his ear, "You are still a mortal man." Thus did the Romans seek to remind even the most exalted that he was still just a normal person: no magical powers had been won with his great victory.

I'm going to be that little slave boy for a minute while we've still got everyone's attention here. That may be a bit of a turd in the punch bowl on what is almost certain to be a triumphal day, but so be it. I presume, with plenty of good evidence, that Democrats are going to sweep to an overwhelming victory today.

Democrats will take the Presidency and larger majorities in Congress, and there will be a temptation to think that this means that "we the people" win, and everything will be better at least for the next few years. There will be a feeling that all our problems will now be solved and we can relax and let our elected officials get down to the business of fixing what Bush and the GOP have broken.

Nothing could be further from the truth: this election is only the beginning of the work to save the American way of life from the folly and greed of the Bush era. Obama may be a transformational leader, but he is still just a man in a difficult political environment who needs tremendous support from us to get anything done.

Our political system simply doesn't work very well. It is hostage to special interests, riddled with institutionalized corruption, and designed for inertia and gridlock. Even with one party in command of two branches and a fresh popular mandate, the people cannot rest assured that reform will come. It never has without motivated and well-organized mass social organizations demanding change, rattling the castle gates, and working for reform from outside the government.

Every great wave of reform in this nation has been the direct result of sustained social movements first and foremost, not the election of a particular politician or party. Elections ratify what social movements achieve, elections don't make social movements unnecessary.

Today is a day to pat yourselves on the back. Hoist a few. Feel good that we have some folks with the public interest at heart in office. And then get back to work tomorrow.

Join social organizations working for causes you believe in. Contribute money and time and sweat to local and national citizen-based groups. Pay less attention to mere partisan politics and champion specific issues. Hold your representatives' feet to the fire. Stay involved. Stay engaged. Work as citizens for those changes you believe are best for this society. If you don't, then our 18th century political system will tell Obama, "no, we can't." And that we cannot afford.

A Matter of Honor - Taking Care of Veterans

by John Adams

The rest of the country is finally learning what Arizonans have known for 26 years: John McCain can’t be trusted.

At the September 26 Presidential Debate, McCain claimed, “The veterans know I’ll take care of them.” Americans stand together in honoring John McCain as a veteran himself, but his negligent record in the US Senate reveals that McCain doesn’t stand with veterans. In fact, McCain’s legislative record of taking care of veterans is abysmal. The non-partisan Disabled American Veterans (DAV) gives McCain a 20% rating of his performance on veterans’ issues in the Senate (Barack Obama earns a DAV score of 80%...here's the DAV website to check the details for yourself:  http://capwiz.com/dav/keyvotes.xc/?lvl=C).

What can veterans expect from would-be President McCain? His Senate record displays his lack of trustworthiness.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has consistently and powerfully represented veterans – both as an Illinois legislator as well as United States Senator. As evidenced by his legislative record, Obama keeps faith with our veterans.

Here are just a few of the candidates’ votes on key veterans’ issues, contrasting the two candidates’ trustworthiness on veterans’ issues:

- Obama was one of 57 co-sponsors (along with Joe Biden) of the Webb GI Bill, signed into law this past June 30. In contrast, McCain not only failed to support the bill, claiming that it was too generous; he didn’t even show up in the Senate to vote on it.

- Obama introduced a bill in April 2007 to provide housing for low-income veterans (Homes for Heroes Act). Again, McCain didn’t show up for the vote. This version of the Homes for Heroes Act died, though a similar follow-up bill fortunately awaits a new vote in the Senate.

- In 2006, Obama voted for two amendments to increase funds for veterans’ medical care by $1.5 billion and expand funding for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient treatment by $450 million. McCain voted no on both; the veterans’ medical care amendment died; the outpatient treatment amendment passed.

- In 2005, Obama voted for an amendment to increase funding for veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006, and setting aside $10 million for veterans counseling services. Again, McCain voted no; this amendment died.

McCain’s claims that he’ll take care of veterans are contradicted by his record as a Senator. We need a President who will honor our veterans, not someone who glibly double-talks on the campaign trail.

Those who risk their lives to defend our country deserve Americans’ support when they come home. Barack Obama’s record shows that he is someone who consistently supports veterans’ issues, but most important, Obama has kept a bond of trust with veterans to honor their service.

And after all, isn’t trust that the most important criterion for us to consider as we select our next President?

James E. Lamb, Jr.: What I Learned Running Ephraim Cruz's LD 29 Campaign

Editor: I asked James to reflect on his experience running a local legislative race, this is the report he filed.

By James E. Lamb, Jr.

Make no mistake – Tucson Democrats rejected my candidate, Ephraim Cruz. Out of seven candidates, Mr. Cruz won sixth place, only ahead of the nonexistent campaign of Gil Guerra. Yet our campaign visited over five thousand households in District 29, spent $21,875.00 in campaign funds, and mobilized volunteers throughout the blistering summer months to contact voters directly about Ephraim Cruz’s message for change in Southern Arizona. Our mechanics proved effective; voters heard our radio advertisements, saw our television commercial, received our mailing, read our flyers, noticed our door hangers, and spoke with our campaign volunteers, often on multiple occasions.  None of it worked.

For five months this year, I served as Ephraim Cruz’s Campaign Manager, and devised and executed Cruz for District 29’s strategy and ground operations during the District 29 Democratic Party primary. Since September 2nd, I’ve grappled with one major question: what does the outcome of the District 29 Democratic Party State Representative primary say about local politics? I fear that Ephraim Cruz’s sobering loss in the September 2nd Democratic Party primary speaks to our community’s failures to forge and maintain an open and diverse Pima County Democratic Party, where local progressives, liberals and moderate Democrats band together to solve our community’s problems, including abysmal state spending on public education, disheartening unemployment and underemployment concerns, and serious misuse of our state’s finite natural resources.

Yes, the Democratic Party’s foremost interest involves electing Democrats to public office, but each and every one of us should scrutinize our electoral candidates to ensure that the Democrats we elect are the Democrats we need. I supported Ephraim Cruz because Ephraim Cruz is a Democrat who fought for those without power and privilege under our system, who suffered loss of income, influence and reputation to respect the human and civil rights of those less fortunate. Ephraim Cruz is a good man, but good men often make terrible candidates for higher office. None of us desire the Democrat who simply parrots liberal talking points before liberal audiences like a patronizing Pinocchio jerkily animated by a low-budget James Carville wannabe in Geppetto drag.

Bottom line: a local campaign revolves around using political action to help one’s neighbors. Most political candidates sound inauthentic, flat, and bored with their own dogma because candidates begin their unlikely sojourn in local politics filled with immense ambition and little else. Certainly Democratic candidates are decent folk who want clean air, low health insurance premiums for all and microwavable chicken dinners in every refrigerator, but most begin their campaigns with a benign abstractness about the entire deal, outside of their pet projects. Then they can’t shut up.

If you haven't seen the debate (streaming video), you should: one candidate pontificates like he’s the world’s foremost expert on immigration policy, another waxes philosophical on legislative minutia. One candidate pleases every special interest group in attendance, a sycophant to both the AFL-CIO and Greenpeace, and another reiterates his credentials and signature issue every two seconds like a skipping Celine Dion compact disc.

Pet projects alone do not imply a sensible, community-focused grasp of local public policy. Attending that debate was like watching cable television with an eleven year old Halo aficionado raised on Pop Tarts and Pop Rocks, all sugar rush and no staying power. One second Jorge Ramos debates militarized borders with Lou Dobbs, the next Luca and Abby fight to save their newborn baby on a syndicated episode of ER. It was ridiculous. Candidates talked past each other and their intended audience, with dissonant white noise the only discernible sound. The debate was a comically insane and wholly typical exchange of domestic Southern Arizona policy proscriptions, all the more laughable because only the barest fraction of the candidate’s proposals had anything to do with the residents of District 29.

Want to know what I learned? Our elected officials should reflect who we are and where we live. Anyone who purports to represent your interests should be able to logically and succinctly discuss those interests in public, and not himself ad nauseam. Local elections, in my opinion, are the largest contributor to voter apathy, because here the orthodox political commentary monopoly respects only pathetic micro-targeting and closed-circuit networking campaigns when candidates win friends and influence voters. Nothing more.

Average voters are not seriously asked to participate – not by their local media, and not by their local political parties. It’s not hard to get people interested: talk about what they care about, not what the Sierra Club or Planned Parenthood or the Arizona Education Association wants you to care about. In District 29, no one cares about the food you grow at home or the hybrid car you drive – especially when a collegiate student body president is shot a few blocks from where you live. Don’t tell me about the bed and breakfast statutes you’ve changed during your time in office when Tucsonans are laid off from their jobs all over.

Frankly, it became too simple to ignore the interests of the residents of District 29 in the mad dash to appeal to the small subset of plugged-in, Establishment Democratic voters in District 29 – invariably elderly, White voters who enjoy the leisure of middle-class retirement. You can learn all manner of useful information about a place just by walking around the neighborhood, and I learned that much of South and Southeast Tucson is filled with neglected neighborhoods, where people fend for themselves and nothing ever really changes.

I’ll never forget: one Saturday my girlfriend and I canvassed Democrats in a South Tucson neighborhood filled with Richard Elias & Ramon Valadez signs, pit bulls, iron barred windows, liquor stores, and eight foot tall wire and iron fencing around every home. Every single home. You can’t canvass folk you can’t reach, and the dogs and fences obstructed more than we would have liked. Throughout that day, however, the Unisource Energy Tower, the tallest office building I’ve seen in Tucson, home to the New York Life Insurance Company, thrust itself above these lower middle class homes, a mocking portrait of glass and steel opulence, Southern Arizona’s answer to Mount Olympus.

That’s the most galling part of this story. We Democrats know the local problems, and how to fix them. When schools suffer from anemic public funding and nonexistent public interest, we Democrats know who is hurt, and who is hurt most abundantly. We Democrats know who is most affected by rising gas prices and urban sprawl. We Democrats know who has health insurance, and who needs AHCCCS. We Democrats know that in Tucson, statistically speaking, the darker one’s skin, the smaller one’s opportunity.

But we steadfastly refuse to discuss these issues during election season, to inform our fellow citizens of the reasons economic calamities befall them, and what they can do about it. We allow our elections to revolve around the simple and the mundane, the meaningless and the comical, the prurient and the personal. We cheapen the suffrage too many fight and bleed and die for when our politics devolves into the childish bickering and underdeveloped thinking that usually characterize local politics throughout our tortured and resilient county.

All the election integrity advocates in Pima County have it wrong. I do not doubt their sincerity when they push for clean and fair and auditable elections, but the most glaring and serious threat to local democracy in Pima County is voter apathy. People do not care about voting in Tucson. What Brad Nelson and Chuck Huckleberry do with the vote after its cast isn’t really relevant when the vote itself approaches numerical insignificance. All the suppression in the world isn’t as strong as a voter’s conviction that his vote does not matter enough to change anything.

In District 29, 31,588 citizens are registered Democrats, yet only 8,797 voted in the September 2nd primary, with seven candidates. I toured polling places throughout District 29 on election day, only to find that with only a few hours left at some of the largest districts, barely fifty or sixty people total showed up to vote all day long. Really, if a voter didn’t already personally know a candidate, or have some connection to the local Democratic Party or a local special interest group, chances are they didn’t even know that September 2nd was Election Day.

Senator Barack Obama famously ripped author Alice Walker in a recent speech when he pronounced “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” Maybe that’s true. But we are also the problem we’ve been avoiding. Public outreach to increase both registered Democrats and voter turnout could provide the majorities we need in Phoenix to actually fix the public education and health care access issues that so plague this state. Get involved.

Duelling Conventions Answer Key Questions

by John Adams

We have seen the past two weeks the best presentation of our Party’s message in Denver, contrasted with the best presentation the Republicans could muster in St. Paul. The results are starkly impressive.

Let’s consider some of the questions posed about our two Campaigns just a few short weeks ago...and answered so well by the duelling Conventions.

Can our Democratic Party unite?  Honestly, can anyone who watched the collective leadership of our Party speak at Denver seriously question whether we are united today?

Does our Party have the national security credentials to keep America safe in this dangerous world?  Not only did we put national security issues -- and endorsements of veterans, military leaders, and national security policymakers -- front-and-center last week in Denver, but it’s clear once again from McCain’s bellicose and feckless rhetoric on Georgia these past weeks that he has neither the temperament nor the strategic sense to deal with the critical questions of war and peace.

Barack Obama’s national security message at Denver was three-fold, highlighting his judgment, competence, and most of all trustworthiness in addressing American national security.  Barack knows that American national security is related to both the strength and intelligence with which America addresses complex challenges of this century.  And Barack knows we need to muster all elements of our national power, including a strong, ready military, but reserving it for the last resort, after we’ve tried diplomacy and all the other tools at our disposal.  For their part, veterans know, as is obvious from the numerous powerful endorsements in Denver, that they can trust Barack Obama to honor their service when they come home. Growing thousands of national security experts, veterans and family members, many of whom were out front in Denver, are adding their enthusiastic endorsement of Barack as our next Commander-in-Chief.

Contrast this with the central message of John McCain…that the belligerent and reckless strategy of the Bush Administration over the past eight years should not only be continued, but that it was too timid. If you listened to McCain pop off in Fall 2001, we should have attacked Iraq, Iran and Syria in response to 9-11. If you listened to McCain in 2003, our adversaries included France and Germany in addition to Iraq. John McCain wants to keep American troops in Iraq for as much as 100 years. And John McCain actually jokes publicly about bombing Iran. Simply speaking, John McCain lacks strategic sense, and lacks the temperament befitting a Commander-in-Chief.

And what about McCain’s allegations these past months that Barack lacks experience? Well, John McCain must have had a senior moment last Friday when he settled on Sarah Palin’s resume.

Again, nothing is more important for a President than the decisions on war and peace…and for this reason alone, McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin is alarming. Yes, as the renowned Fox News scholar Steve Doucy has said, she is the governor of Alaska which is next to Russia. Some recommendation.

Palin is truly a foreign policy blank slate, ripe for neocon engraving.

Actuarial tables and American history tell us that Palin has a nearly even chance of acceding to the Presidency…in McCain’s first term. In selecting Palin, John McCain confirmed once again that his judgment is seriously impaired.

So truly, we Democrats had a great Convention…full of substance and full of energy. We are fired up and ready to go!

We have a powerful, compelling message for the American people and the world, that addresses the real challenges Americans face at home and abroad. We have brilliant, convincing nominees in Barack Obama and Joe Biden…and they’re out front in the polls as well as in the electoral vote forecasts.

We’re going to coast to victory in November, right?

Unfortunately, assuming victory at this stage is absolute lunacy.

Not only are the stakes far too high to take anything for granted, but we can expect the Republicans to do whatever they have to do to retain the White House. They will pull out all the stops.

And the greatest enemy we face is not the Republicans, but voter apathy.

The real lesson of the duelling Conventions, for this first-time Delegate, is that now more than ever, it’s important to take the energy, the enthusiasm, the issues, and the facts back home to our neighborhoods here in Arizona. The work that good Democrats do every day, the canvassing, the phone-banking, the discussions with your friends and neighbors…that hard work is what will get us to victory in November.

Our hard work will bring John McCain “home”, wherever that is, because we must not let him occupy the White House.

And only our hard work will elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

We will win this election, not because the polls and pundits say we will, but because of the hard work of everyone in the Party, pulling together these next few weeks. For my part, I’m looking forward to marching with you, to our battle with the Republicans, and to our victory in November.

Who We Are

by John Adams

Dateline Denver...first night of the DNC.  Tonight was all about who we are as Democrats, and about who we nominate to lead this country out of the night of the past eight years.  We were treated to numerous moving, powerful, evocative speeches and images.

Not least of which was the beautifully planned marriage proposal -- on the Convention floor -- by Arizona Delegate Ruben Gallego to his now-fiancee, Kate Widman.  Perfectly timed to correspond with the other events of the evening, Ruben (who also serves as our Delegation whip -- he who orchestrates Delegation floor activities, including cheering and sign-waving) did us all proud -- and touched us -- in sharing this hugely important event!  Kate said yes...congratulations by all followed!

There were other wonderful, more public, moments...my favorite was when Ted Kennedy made his appearance, to the joy and universal respect of the Convention Hall.  And that after a beautiful speech by Caroline Kennedy...all of us shared the privilege just to witness this beautiful and touching moment in the history of the Kennedy family, and in the history of modern American politics.

And Michelle Obama's speech was magnificent...powerfully delivered, eloquent, and convincing.  We'll be fortunate to have a First Lady who understands and inspires the American people...as well as the President.

A few other Delegates' perceptions during the evening:

John Rayson, Florida:  "The Convention is our preparation for taking on the Republicans this Fall, and one of our challenges is to more fully introduce Barack Obama to the American people.  That's what tonight is about.  The Convention is also about building teamwork among the party leadership, harnessing the efforts toward the goal of winning the election."

David Hageman, North Carolina:  "My father's a US Navy officer, and used to be a strong supporter of John McCain.  He's still a Republican.  I'm not sure whether he'll vote for Obama this Fall, but he's thinking a lot about it, and he seems to understand why I'm so committed to Obama and to the change he represents."

Carolyn Wagner, Arizona:  "One of Obama's strengths will be that he'll encourage cooperation with our international partners, particularly the European Union, on a wide range of global issues."

As an aside, several of our concerned Delegates have created a website, http://www.FreeCindyMcCain.com to address the need to bring relief to the long-suffering wife of our senior Senator...visit if you get a chance before the Republicans trot the unfortunate pair out next week at the Republican Convention.

This first evening of our Convention was about telling the story of our heritage as a Party -- and about passing the torch to a new generation, as Ted Kennedy said, to Barack Obama and the movement for change he has ignited.  Tonight was both educational and inspirational...a great start for what promises to be an excellent staging ground for our battle to take our country back this Fall.

Now we need to take the offensive, to get on to Who They Are -- to provide the stark contrast between our Party's leadership and the destructive prospects of four more years of Republican disaster.

I've contracted a bad case of hope...

Recently, MoveOn.com had an Obama in 30 Seconds ad contest.  One of the honorable mention winners featured a bunch of people concerned that they'd caught something, looking worried and saying "it could happen to anyone...."  You think at first it's going to be an ad for STD awareness or something.  But, then you find out that what they've really come down with is a bad case of hope.

The ads not just funny, it's true.  It seems that everyone I know, including myself, have contracted a bad case of it and it appears to be spreading.

So, last night when I was sitting around a table at Zona 78s with my group of Obama women, planning our trip to the Denver Convention, I wondered why.  What is it about Obama?

After kicking it around for awhile, I've concluded that, for me at least, it boils down to his use of pronouns.

Yes, pronouns.

You dont' here him talk about what he can do.  He never says I am the one, "I can make change happen." Instead, he calls to us, by reminding people that "We can make a difference."  It's up to us to work and serve, and help make change happen.  By doing so, Obama is inviting us to reclaim our lives, neighborhoods, communities and country.  He's inviting us back to the table.

Log onto www.barackobama.com and you'll see at the top of the page the following words: "Together We Can Help the Disaster Victims...Donate/Help the Victims.  The link takes you directly to the American Red Cross donation page. I know because I did it last night.

It's not just the words, it's the actions they're inspring.

Supporters across the country are organizing Obama Works Community Service Projects.  Inspired by Obama's call to make a difference, these folks are cleaning streets, parks and neighborhoods.  They've sponsored the Missoula River Clean-up effort, organized book drives, food and clothing drives.

On Friday, May 2, Obama supporters right here in Tucson collected over 350 pounds of food for the Tucson Community Food Bank.  Their next Obama Works Project is going to target the homeless population.  They'll be delivering brown bag lunches, lots of water, and a little hope to those folks in need right here in our backyard.

So if you're feeling a little light headed, dizzy, maybe even a little giddy, don't rush off to the doctors yet.  You may just be coming down with a little hope yourself.

Giffords Nixes Impeachment

DFATucson has been pressing Gabby Giffords for awhile now to get off the dime on impeachment and, as a very minimal sign that she's willing to fulfill the Constitutional role for which we hired her, perhaps sign a letter being circulated by Rep. Wexler calling for investigations of possible criminal acts by the Bush Administration (which could lead to an impeachment).

To that end, DFATucson has been demonstrating with a "Honk to Impeach" rally outside Gabby's office every Monday from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. (drive time). The rallies have been very well-received by the public and have brought a lot of awareness to members of Gabby's staff how much sentiment in favor of impeachment there is among the public, as well as some press coverage.

One good thing the Gabby did was direct her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli and much of the rest of her local staff to meet with DFATucson regarding impeachment. Video of that meeting will be available online very soon.

DFATucson recently got an email from Policelli recently outlining the Congesswoman's position on impeachment:

"The bottom line is that Congresswoman Giffords will not be signing on to impeachment legislation, resolutions or letters.  I know that is a disappointment to your group, but assure you that Gabrielle is working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance."

In other words, Gabby's not willing to lift a finger to protect the Constitution from the criminals inhabiting our White House.

What I find most mystifying about Giffords' attitude is her apparent blindness (though, admittedly it isn't just her, but the entire gang of "Shrumian" consultants that she and Democrats like her are wont to heed) to the strategic politics of impeachment.

The standard Democratic defense of sitting on our thumbs regarding impeachment goes like this: we are winning the debate, so don't change the terms. We are headed toward an easy victory in 2008 with a Democratic President and larger margins in Congress (maybe even a filibuster-proof majority), so why allow the Republicans to stir up a mess over impeachment, accusing us of using it as a political ploy (which they would certainly be able to recognize from experience, I guess...). You are just playing into their hands and walking our Democratic candidates into a political buzz saw with no benefit. These guys are lame ducks and out of there in less than a year anyhow...

This is kind of political deep thought that gives us Democrats consultants with win-loss records like Bob Shrum, hence my derision for these political Solons as "Shrumians." This line of thought might seem like prudent wisdom to you, but in fact it is just an example of how Democratic strategists have so consistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so frequently in recent years.

It can be summed up in a single word: timidity.

The voters don't much care for it, and politics isn't very kind to those who are characterized by it. Timidity is the reason why Congress' polling is in the toilet no matter how much good and useful legislation they manage to pass. People can smell it in their leaders—and Americans don't respect the timid. Americans would much rather you be bold and wrong than timid and right. They worship you and put you on our money if your happen to be lucky and wise enough to be bold and right.

Let's take Gabby's race against Tim Bee as an exemplar for a tight contest in a swing state, which it really is, and think about the political consequences of impeachment rearing it's "game changing," "suck the air out of the room," "playing into the GOP's hands" head.

What is the first thing that would happen if Gabby in some way advocated impeachment? Why the GOP would attack her as a loon, and accuse her of playing politics. Great. She gets a few news cycles to lay out all the very specific and well-documented ways in which this Administration has broken the law and violated the public trust. Her cred with the Democractic base and at least 2/3rds of independents goes through the roof.

Now, Tim Bee gets a choice. Does he join in the baying from the GOP, or does he lay low? From what I know of Tim, he may lie low and try to say little. Why? Because the last thing he wants to spend his slice of the public's attention on is defending the record of the Bush Administration's excesses and policy failures. He wants to run as some other kind of Republican... preferably one that isn't from the Republican Party that contains Bush and Cheney and their menagerie of chuckleheads, NeoCons, and religious maniacs.

Which is why the worst possible thing for the GOP is to make this election about Bush's record. Which is why we should make it about Bush's record. He's a lame duck, so the only way to do that with any political potency is by injecting the issue of impeachment into the election.

Gabby and her "Shrumians" hope that by trying to appear moderate and prudent and vewy, vewy qwiet, she can eek out a victory over Tim in November. Tim hopes pretty much the same thing. Either of them could be right about the outcome with that strategy. More likely Gabby will be proven right—but it's no sure thing.

How to turn that into a landslide? By hanging Bush around Bee's neck like a rotting albatross, and making Tim try to convince voters it smells good. Defending Bush against the threat of impeachment is the only way to get Bee to stand up for the Bush legacy.

Once Bee is forced into that corner, he's done. No squeaky margins—we have a landslide. Independents and Democrats will deliver hard and enthusiastic margins and even a lot of Republicans won't be able to stomach Bee defending wiretapping, torture, politicizing our justice system, outing our intelligence assets for political revenge, and unconstitutional signing statements, just to name of few of the acts Bee could be forced to answer for or publicly repudiate.

Many in Gabby's camp think they need moderate Republican votes to beat Bee. They are only going to get them if Bee cannot be seen as any sort of moderate Republican. Nor does Gabby need them if she fully engages the ire of the independents against the last 6 years of Republican rule. Only by luring the Bee into the Bush, as it were, will independent produce the huge Democratic margins that they will when the issue is the Bush record.

By making this election only about the future, and failing to acknowledge and make strategic political use of the history we just suffered through by taking impeachment "off the table," Gabby and Democrats like her are giving their Republican rivals a chance to redefine themselves and distance themselves from the Bush legacy that is rightfully theirs to bear.

By running solely on how she and the rest of the Democratic Congress are "working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance," Gabby is ensuring the kind of tight race that impels her to such contemptible timidity in the face of outrageous assaults on the rule of law and our constitutional order.

Still Think You Live in the Most Free Country on Earth?

Police routinely abuse their authority and discretion in the face of peaceful exercise of civil rights. We need to demand better training and more accountability when violations like this one occur.

At least they weren't beaten, pepper-sprayed, arrested, held without charge or trial, tortured and/or killed. This time.

PSA: Report Presidential Primary Election Irregularities and Problems

Your Democratic Election Integrity Committee is collecting Presidential Primary incident reports.

Members of our committee will work through these identifying patterns to prepare for future elections. If you saw something happen be very specific in your report – who/what/when/where/how – please. 

Avoid hearsay, which would cause us to waste time as we attempted to trace down sources (“they said” and “I heard”). If possible, include names and phone numbers of persons we might contact to verify and/or fine tune the information. The better reporter you are, the more effective we can be. 

You may also send clippings of newspaper stories, letters to the editor and the like. Don’t assume we saw the coverage, send it in.

Title each email: PPP Incident Report : your county name.

Remember, the advantage of the AZ Dem EIC is that, by comparing counties and incidents, we can detect and develop strategies for mitigating recurring patterns. 

Protection of our elections begins with you.

Please send reports to your County Chair for collection.

Thank you,

Ted Downing
Election Integrity Committee Chair

Pima County Election Integrity Standoff Ends

And so it ends, not with a bang, but with a whisper of data flowing between two computers. The Democratic Party and it's staunch allies, the Republicans (try to get used to that idea, at least on this issue...) and the Libertarians, and a great number of Independent active citizens, have prevailed in the battle for the databases.

Pima County activists have won an absolute first: the first ever complete time-series GEMS databases of multiple elections in progress. This is a national treasure for the election integrity movement. Now, of course, comes the hard work of analyzing that which has been won, fully understanding the architecture of the normal data operations of an honest election, and building tools to sniff out signs of fraud. A team of top experts from across the political spectrum is assembling from across the county and they are calling themselves: The Royal Purple Team.

They are setting up a wiki to collaborate on analysis of the data and the tool building and distribution. Let the word go forth to the world, Pima County has the map to the Diebold fortress of security through obscurity, and we fully intend to take over the fortress and replace their silly, increasing etiolated topiary maze with real security measures and millions of citizens' eyes on the prize which that fortress protects: our democracy.

Huzzah!

Pima County Election Integrity Trial: Testimony of Mr. John Brakey

Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.

I'm not entirely sure what the county's purpose was in calling John, but they kept him dangling for days. I have to wonder if some of it was just a way to keep him out of the courtroom most of the time.

In any case, they were hoping to put a wild-eyed revolutionary on the stand to frighten the judge with, they instead got a concerned grand-dad who wants to leave a better America behind.

Please recall that the following is a condensed and paraphrased summary, not a transcript. Mucho gracias to David Safier for compiling these summaries.

Summary of testimony by John Brakey

Direct examination by Christopher Straub, Deputy Pima County Attorney.

John Brakey has no formal computer training, but is knowledgeable about computers. He is a member of local and state election integrity committees and of Audit AZ.

Brakey has no fondness for the GEMS system.

Brakey is good at recognizing patterns in databases.

He has access to a copy of GEMS software and has been working with it.

He believes most election fraud is done internally.

He has developed a simple technique to do a password switch, so a database can be given a new password and be opened in GEMS. He has published the technique to demonstrate the poor security of the GEMS software.

Asked if his involvement in the lawsuit is to generate a change in the election software, Brakey replied that his motivation is his granddaughter. He is worried about the way this country is going for her sake, and he wants to do everything he can to correct the problems he sees.

No Cross Examination.

National Presidential Caucus

Link: National Presidential Caucus.

This is a great idea. Let's have a say (even if a non-delegate determinative one) before Iowa kicks off.

On December 7th, caucuses for both parties all around the nation will determine whom they think should be our nominees. No waiting for Iowa to tell us who the front-runners are.

I would like to participate in organizing one or more of these in Tucson (each caucus is limited to 50 people, though you can have multiple caucuses in one location). Requirements are a venue holding at least 50, preferably with high-speed internet, and video projection equipment (though that last is very optional).

Anyone else interested? Ideas for good venues? Anyone from the local Presidential campaigns interested in getting some great local press and a possible momentum bump if you win? Let's do this thing!

Reply by email to MBryan AT gmail DOT com or call me with the Call Me button on the right sidebar.

Why is this letter from the Goldwater Institute, not the Democratic Party?

Why am I getting a mailer that I completely agree with from the Goldwater Institute? It's not that I never agree with conservatives (it happens on those rare occasions when they actually talk like conservatives), it's that I wish liberals were better at choosing to advocate issues that could have significant appeal to independent voters. If we understand and talk about issues that matter to undecided voters, framed by our values, those voters are going to give the Democratic Party another look and consider voting for those candidates that speak to those values.

Nothing boils my progressive liberal blood quicker than a bunch of fat-cats getting massive tax subsidies from my local government. I've bitched about this issue before, ironically also in the context of the Goldwater Institutes advocacy on this issue. I consider the practice to be deeply corrupt and counter-productive to sustainable economic development. Strangely, I know the conservative Goldwater Institute agrees with me - they're telling me so - but I haven't any idea where the Democratic Party stands on this hot-button issue that is extremely salient to local and state elections. You won't find a word about it in the Arizona Democratic Party's platform; if anything, some parts of the document could be read creatively to support such tax subsidies - not that anyone reads the bloody thing anyhow...

By our silence we are allowing the Goldwater Institute to dominate this issue, raise money with it, and divert that money to wing-nuttery like private school vouchers and non-existent eminent domain abuses that mask a 'regulatory takings' agenda.

We could be using this populist rocket-fuel to power local Democratic candidacies. Consider the campaign of Salette Latas for Oro Valley town council. She is staking out a strong position on this issue. She's running in a traditionally very conservative area, building her grassroots organization in conjunction with a campaign opposing a massive give-away of local revenue to a developer who promised the moon and delivered green cheese.

We should be using opposition to tax subsidies to raise awareness on important Democratic values like strengthening local communities, supporting local entrepreneurs and small businesses, sustainable growth, and tax fairness. Hell, a fairly explicit ban of such subsidies is even in our constitution: you can't get much more politically orthodox than upholding the constitution.

We should be running more of our local candidates on this winning issue. Instead, the Goldwater Institute is being left to own the issue to such an extent that they feel free to send fund-raising letters to Democrats like me and my wife.

Guest Action by Steve Brittle: Hayden and the Superfund

Hayden, Arizona is a small company town with one industry – the ASARCO copper smelter. This is one of the nation’s top polluters. ASARCO has admitted in public reports its releases into Hayden’s air of thousands of tons of arsenic, lead, barium, copper, zinc, and sulfuric acid over the years. It is now proposed that Hayden be declared an EPA Superfund site, but the company, and elements of the town and county government, are determined to resist.

ASARCO has left a trail of environmental contamination with over $1 billion in environmental cleanup liability around the country. When faced with the costs of these cleanups, the company instead filed for bankruptcy.

Governor Napolitano has to concur with the decision to list Hayden as a Superfund site and will decide by September 20th. But given the actions of ADEQ, obviously intended to sell out the community, she needs to hear from everyone that she should concur with the EPA’s proposal to designate the area a Superfund site. The people of Hayden need everyone’s help to prevent them from their continuing toxic nightmare.

Please contact Governor Janet Napolitano by mail, phone, and/or fax, and urge her to concur with the EPA’s proposal to list the town of Hayden as a Superfund site.

Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381

More about the story of ASARCO's history in Hayden and the effort to clean up ASARCO's mess after the click...

Call for Volunteers to Help with Voter Registration

Linda Brown from Azadvocacy.org needs volunteers! 30,000 voter registration forms bounced by the counties. Terry Goddard says they need to prove citizenship. Though there is no evidence that fraudulent voting has ever happened, the GOP has used this red herring to create an additional hurdle that people who wish to exercise their right to vote must clear. These 30,000 citizens didn't jump high enough.

Please help us register these folks. Randall Holmes of the Arizona Democratic Election Integrity Committee is coordinating the Democratic response to this crisis, and he can be reached at rholmes69@cox.net.

Rove's Retirement Party Fundraiser 8/29

I gotta say, I love what the Pima party is doing here. Good fun with a purpose; a strategy after my own heart:

Justice for Pfc. LaVena Johnson

Link: The Pfc. LaVena Johnson Petition.

Pfc. LaVena Johnson's death in Iraq has been ruled a suicide. But her body was bruised severely and someone attempted to set her on fire. Her family wants an investigation and justice done for their daughter's death.

The members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are in a position to make that happen. It so happens that our representative, Gabby Giffords, is member of that House committee. Contact her, and demand Pfc. Johnson's case be reopened.

District office
1661 North Swan, Suite 112
Tucson, AZ 85712
Phone (520) 881-3588
Fax (520) 322-9490

D.C. office
U.S. House of Representatives
502 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone (202) 225-2542
Fax (202) 225-0378

Put it back on the table, Madam Speaker!

Marlene Phillips, a member of Tucson's Drinking Liberally, finally got fed up. She sent me this, and appeals for your action:

It started two weeks ago, when our congresswoman spoke in front of a group of citizens here in Tucson. A number of us wanted to know how she felt about impeachment; she replied that as long as Nancy Pelosi says impeachment's off the table her hands were tied. So I decided if that is indeed the case, all of us who think this administration is guilty of impeachable offenses must write to Speaker Pelosi and tell her to put impeachment back on that table immediately.

And I do mean all of us. My goal is not to send in a petition with a few signatures. I want a ‘Miracle on 34th Street’ moment, I want the mail deliverer to walk into the Speaker’s office with bags of letters all of which demand that she immediately take the necessary steps to begin impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president.

I encourage you to personalize this letter with your own thoughts. Feel free to change the articles of impeachment if you feel there are others that are more legally binding, have more precedent, or are more grievous. Whatever you add, please don’t stray from the main purpose of the letter, to convince the Speaker to put impeachment back on the table.

In an additional effort to make her take notice, I’m adding a gimmick. When you sign the letter and stuff it in the envelope, please include a symbol of a table: a paper or cloth napkin. On that napkin write your name, zip code, and the words “Put Impeachment Back On The Table!”

Please, take 5 minutes out of your busy life today for these 5 steps:

1. Change the signature on this letter, personalize the language
2. While the letter is printing, find a napkin and sign it
3. Find an envelope and a stamp and 
4. Mail the letter and signed napkin to Nancy Pelosi

             Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of The U.S. House of Representatives
            Office of the Speaker
            H-232, US Capitol
            Washington, DC 20515

    5. Send this email and letter to as many people as you can!

The only way we're going to get her attention, or anyone's attention, is if letters begin arriving en mass, so tell everyone to do the same.

If you would like to let others in your community know about this campaign, you can download napkin.doc outlining the essentials which was put together by DL regular Pam Powers, who blogs at Muse Views.

I'm tired of doing nothing and nothing getting done.  Aren't you?