Ted Kennedy was in many ways a difficult man to figure out.
His three brothers were groomed to be leaders. As the baby of the family, Teddy had to figure out how on his own.
All three of his brothers died violently. Teddy died at home in his bed.
Three plane crashes claimed the lives of members of the Kennedy family over the years. Teddy was once in a plane crash too, but he survived his.
Nobody questioned the burial of his brothers at Arlington National Cemetary. The army has invited Ted to be buried there too but I bet you a dollar to a can of beans that some idiotic right wing talk show host will claim that the army was pressured into it (for the record, Ted Kennedy is a Korean era veteran and has every right to be buried at Arlington for that reason alone.)
As the youngest of the Kennedy brothers, he was never expected to become the leader. His father Joe Kennedy wanted for one of his sons to become a President, the first catholic President of the United States.
So from an early age, he groomed his oldest son, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. to become the leader.
Joseph Sr. was a bomber pilot in World War II and volunteered for a dangerous mission, in which he was shot down.
So then the mantle fell on John the second son, who had heroically survived his own brush with death during the war. And John did one day become President. And died when a bullet, fired by whom has never been conclusively determined, blew his brain out of the back of his head.
And then the third son, Robert, took the mantle up and determined to become President and finish the job that John had started. And he was well on his way when he died by the same cause as John did.
And so it fell on the youngest son, Edward, to carry on the tradition.
There is no doubt what Edward's biggest failure was, it came in 1969 when he got drunk and drove a car off of a bridge with a young campaign worker. Kennedy managed to get out of the submerged vehicle and swim to safety but the campaign worker died. Kennedy admitted himself that his conduct that night was 'inexcusable.'
Republicans have used Kennedy's personal failings and biggest mistake to flog him for over forty years (although they typically only reserve this treatment for liberals, conveniently forgetting that Laura Bush also once killed a person while driving drunk.)
And during those forty years Kennedy has grown into one of the most effective legislators that the Senate has ever known, writing and then sponsoring legislation with senators of every conceivable stripe. I disagree with Barney Frank's overly romantic statement today that Ted Kennedy was the most influential person in American history who was never elected President mainly because I'm sure that 95% of Americans if asked that question would name Ben Franklin (and I would be one of them) but nevertheless it is a good measure of how effective a legislator he has been. Someone pointed out today that Kennedy's tenure in the senate has been exceeded in American history only by Robert Byrd (still serving) and the late Strom Thurmond, but it is virtually certain that Kennedy has had more success over the years at writing and getting legislation passed than either of them. It is probably Kennedy's effectiveness that has so infuriated conservatives to where they are much more likely to detest Kennedy than, for example, Robert Byrd. Just like in sports, the loudest boos are reserved for the opponents who have stuffed your team in the past.
More than any other cause, Kennedy wanted to see universal health care extended to all Americans. He later wrote that his biggest legislative failure was in opposing a Nixon-backed plan in the early 1970's that included something along the lines of a public option, because Kennedy at the time favored a single payer plan. Eventually the opposition was strong enough that nothing got passed. Since then however Kennedy has pushed tirelessly for reform, until his own health became so bad that he couldn't do it anymore. Even then, he was ready right up until the end to literally be wheeled into the Senate chamber if his vote were needed to pass reform.
But like his brothers, he won't live to see the vision fulfilled. We must do it though, because passing health care reform this year, with a public option, would be the best and most fitting tribute we could pay to Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Terror alert level raised for political reasons, says the man who raised it
Today, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge admitted that the reason why the terror alert was raised a level before the 2004 election had nothing to do with terrorism.
Instead, it was part of a strategy devised by the Bush campaign to help ensure his re-election that year. Apparently the campaign pressured Ridge to find an excuse to raise the terror alert level in the weeks before the 2004 election until he went along with it, despite having no intelligence suggesting that an attack was any more likely than it had been.
Remember that Mr. Ridge, a former Republican Governor or Pennsylvania who earlier this year was still being courted by national Republicans to run against Arlen Specter in the Senate race next year, was President Bush's hand-picked first Secretary of Homeland Security. Hardly the bomb-throwing liberal that some on the right would suggest must make this kind of accusation. But he was a Bush White House insider and as the person who actually did raise the alert level he certainly knew very well why he was raising it.
Let's also remember that when liberals dared to suggest that any kind of national security policy might be political, the Republicans would always wave the bloody flag of 9/11 and impugn their patriotism.
This wasn't all that long ago, after all, even an elephant can remember a few years back.
Instead, it was part of a strategy devised by the Bush campaign to help ensure his re-election that year. Apparently the campaign pressured Ridge to find an excuse to raise the terror alert level in the weeks before the 2004 election until he went along with it, despite having no intelligence suggesting that an attack was any more likely than it had been.
Remember that Mr. Ridge, a former Republican Governor or Pennsylvania who earlier this year was still being courted by national Republicans to run against Arlen Specter in the Senate race next year, was President Bush's hand-picked first Secretary of Homeland Security. Hardly the bomb-throwing liberal that some on the right would suggest must make this kind of accusation. But he was a Bush White House insider and as the person who actually did raise the alert level he certainly knew very well why he was raising it.
Let's also remember that when liberals dared to suggest that any kind of national security policy might be political, the Republicans would always wave the bloody flag of 9/11 and impugn their patriotism.
This wasn't all that long ago, after all, even an elephant can remember a few years back.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Republicans own the Republican budget.
The latest word from the capitol is that the GOP legislature is, as it looked like they might do last week, going to pass exactly the same budget that Governor Brewer vetoed on July 1, and this time she will sign it.
She will blame this surrender, ironically enough on Democrats.
Yes, you read that right. After being frozen out of budget negotiations for months (and the proposed Democratic budget was never considered at all by the GOP leadership, by the way) the only times when Democrats were consulted was when it became clear that the GOP leadership was all tied up in knots with themselves with a deadline looming and they needed one more vote-- and then it was never the Democratic leadership, but individual Democrats (Hale and later Miranda) who they tried to get to defect and vote for a terrible budget for a price, and as I noted they were consulted literally hours before deadlines and not at any other time or with any other Democrat. Luckily neither of those two took the bait.
Zelph at AZ Netroots has a pretty good summary of all the times that Democrats were consulted at all here. As you can see the number of times when even individual Democrats were courted is a short list, and never once did the Governor bring together a 'five party' solution (herself, and the majority and minority leaders from both houses of the legislature,) something Democrats had been repeatedly asking for. You'd think she was superstitious about the number five or something.
Blaming Democrats that a bad budget passes with only Republican support because none of them actually was willing to sell out and vote for the bad budget? That would be bad enough in and of itself.
However we can go further, and point out that this isn't just a bad budget full of budget cuts. It's a bad budget full of tax cuts (especially the permanent repeal of the state property tax.) Asking any thinking person to vote for a sales tax referral when all it will do is backfill a tax cut that mainly benefits the rich and corporations who can pay good lobbyists is a sham in and of itself.
Let's be clear. This is a Republican budget, written exclusively by Republican leaders, passed with only Republican votes in a legislature where Republicans have absolute control, and if it is signed it will be a Republican Governor. This turkey will be their budget, they will own it and there will be no way one could argue otherwise. Democrats can't do anything about this budget because they've been locked out of the room for a long time. Blaming Democrats would be like blaming the person you outbid at an auction if the item you bought turns out to be junk.
But they will try it anyway.
She will blame this surrender, ironically enough on Democrats.
Yes, you read that right. After being frozen out of budget negotiations for months (and the proposed Democratic budget was never considered at all by the GOP leadership, by the way) the only times when Democrats were consulted was when it became clear that the GOP leadership was all tied up in knots with themselves with a deadline looming and they needed one more vote-- and then it was never the Democratic leadership, but individual Democrats (Hale and later Miranda) who they tried to get to defect and vote for a terrible budget for a price, and as I noted they were consulted literally hours before deadlines and not at any other time or with any other Democrat. Luckily neither of those two took the bait.
Zelph at AZ Netroots has a pretty good summary of all the times that Democrats were consulted at all here. As you can see the number of times when even individual Democrats were courted is a short list, and never once did the Governor bring together a 'five party' solution (herself, and the majority and minority leaders from both houses of the legislature,) something Democrats had been repeatedly asking for. You'd think she was superstitious about the number five or something.
Blaming Democrats that a bad budget passes with only Republican support because none of them actually was willing to sell out and vote for the bad budget? That would be bad enough in and of itself.
However we can go further, and point out that this isn't just a bad budget full of budget cuts. It's a bad budget full of tax cuts (especially the permanent repeal of the state property tax.) Asking any thinking person to vote for a sales tax referral when all it will do is backfill a tax cut that mainly benefits the rich and corporations who can pay good lobbyists is a sham in and of itself.
Let's be clear. This is a Republican budget, written exclusively by Republican leaders, passed with only Republican votes in a legislature where Republicans have absolute control, and if it is signed it will be a Republican Governor. This turkey will be their budget, they will own it and there will be no way one could argue otherwise. Democrats can't do anything about this budget because they've been locked out of the room for a long time. Blaming Democrats would be like blaming the person you outbid at an auction if the item you bought turns out to be junk.
But they will try it anyway.
Friday, August 14, 2009
At least Democrats are bothering to meet constituents
We've all seen the coverage of noisy protests at town halls and other meetings, including disruptions of events that weren't even town hall meetings at all by protesters wanting to shout down Democratic congressmen and Senators over health care.
But what about Republicans?
Well, some certainly have held town hall meetings but others apparently don't even want to bother, or else they have held them to carefully selected and hand-picked crowds, with tickets being handed out by local Republican operatives to other Republican activists.
Want to ask Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) or David Vitter (R-LA,) both of whom are running for re-election next year? Don't bother, they aren't holding meetings open to the general public. Neither are some Republican house members.
I guess their minds about how they will vote on health insurance reform are already made up, they will vote against any bill, no matter what it says. Wanna bet they won't even bother to read a summary of what's in the bills? After all, they won't have to answer any questions about it.
Criticize Democrats whose town halls have been disrupted by protesters all you want (although Washington Congressman Rick Larsen figured out how to control the protesters, by holding his town hall in a spacious outdoor stadium in which only the person at the mike could be heard then also opening the meeting with the national anthem.) But if you want to criticize Democrats then acknowlege that at least they have bothered to schedule the town halls in the first place.
But what about Republicans?
Well, some certainly have held town hall meetings but others apparently don't even want to bother, or else they have held them to carefully selected and hand-picked crowds, with tickets being handed out by local Republican operatives to other Republican activists.
Want to ask Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) or David Vitter (R-LA,) both of whom are running for re-election next year? Don't bother, they aren't holding meetings open to the general public. Neither are some Republican house members.
I guess their minds about how they will vote on health insurance reform are already made up, they will vote against any bill, no matter what it says. Wanna bet they won't even bother to read a summary of what's in the bills? After all, they won't have to answer any questions about it.
Criticize Democrats whose town halls have been disrupted by protesters all you want (although Washington Congressman Rick Larsen figured out how to control the protesters, by holding his town hall in a spacious outdoor stadium in which only the person at the mike could be heard then also opening the meeting with the national anthem.) But if you want to criticize Democrats then acknowlege that at least they have bothered to schedule the town halls in the first place.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
This is what Jan Brewer wrote on July 1. She was right then. Will she still stand by it?
It looks like the Arizona Senate passed (and the house will probably pass tomorrow) a budget similar to the one that Governor Brewer vetoed on July 1 (and just like on that occasion, they also won't refer her sales tax proposal to the ballot.) And just like on that occasion, it cuts even deeper to accomodate a repeal of the state property tax.
Here is what she wrote in explaining her decision to veto the budget on July 1:
"I am deeply disappointed to report to the people of Arizona that the Legislature has been unable to send me a responsible budget plan. While Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams have worked with tremendous effort and diligence to reach a reasonable compromise with my proposal, regrettably, those efforts have fallen short.
"As a result, I received early this morning a fatally flawed legislative budget. The legislative budget ignores my consistently expressed goals and instead incorporates devastating cuts to education, public safety, and our state's most vital health services for the frail. In particular this package of bills is shortsighted in that it sets up an enormous revenue shortfall that will severly harm our State's [sic] future.
"Therefore I have carefully and selectively chosen to line-item veto portions of the legislation which allows me to add back funds for vital services and public safety so those critical programs are unaffected. Additionally, due to my actions today, state government services will continue to function. Improvements in education funding, however, will require significantly more legislative work.
"As Governor, I intend to see this through until we have achieved together what I have long advocated -- a prudent budget that neither over-spends nor under-funds. To ensure that happens, I am calling a Special Session of the Legislature and I ask that legislators re-dedicate themselves in a bi-partisan fashion to crafting a budget that reflects favorably on the future of Arizona.
Had the legislature actually followed her advice and chosen to work in a bi-partisan fashion, we would probably have an acceptable budget by now. But their insistence on continuing down the road they were on, trying to create a Republican-only vote (and with the backdrop that a critical block of Republicans were having their votes dictated by Grover Norquist) led them right back down the same dead end.
Now we have to ask whether the Governor meant what she said, especially the last sentence on July 1. If she meant it then she has no choice, she must veto this budget too and demand that Democrats be included in the negotiations this time.
Here is what she wrote in explaining her decision to veto the budget on July 1:
"I am deeply disappointed to report to the people of Arizona that the Legislature has been unable to send me a responsible budget plan. While Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams have worked with tremendous effort and diligence to reach a reasonable compromise with my proposal, regrettably, those efforts have fallen short.
"As a result, I received early this morning a fatally flawed legislative budget. The legislative budget ignores my consistently expressed goals and instead incorporates devastating cuts to education, public safety, and our state's most vital health services for the frail. In particular this package of bills is shortsighted in that it sets up an enormous revenue shortfall that will severly harm our State's [sic] future.
"Therefore I have carefully and selectively chosen to line-item veto portions of the legislation which allows me to add back funds for vital services and public safety so those critical programs are unaffected. Additionally, due to my actions today, state government services will continue to function. Improvements in education funding, however, will require significantly more legislative work.
"As Governor, I intend to see this through until we have achieved together what I have long advocated -- a prudent budget that neither over-spends nor under-funds. To ensure that happens, I am calling a Special Session of the Legislature and I ask that legislators re-dedicate themselves in a bi-partisan fashion to crafting a budget that reflects favorably on the future of Arizona.
Had the legislature actually followed her advice and chosen to work in a bi-partisan fashion, we would probably have an acceptable budget by now. But their insistence on continuing down the road they were on, trying to create a Republican-only vote (and with the backdrop that a critical block of Republicans were having their votes dictated by Grover Norquist) led them right back down the same dead end.
Now we have to ask whether the Governor meant what she said, especially the last sentence on July 1. If she meant it then she has no choice, she must veto this budget too and demand that Democrats be included in the negotiations this time.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
I'm lookin' over, a four leaf Grover
OK, what do these pictures have in common?
The first picture is of Grover Norquist, a Washington D.C. political godfather who has 38 Arizona legislators wrapped around his little finger.
The second picture is Grover the little blue monster from Sesame Street.
Some ways to tell them apart:
Grover #1 is a member of the Republican Party. Grover #2 has a birthday party every year.
Grover # 1 wants to shrink the government to the size where he can drown it in the bathtub. Grover #2 likes to sing in the bathtub.
Grover #1 wants to cut taxes. Grover #2 wants to cut the cake.
Grover #1 owns more than a third of the Arizona state legislature. Grover #2 owns good friends and a song in his heart.
Grover #1 threatens to retaliate against anyone who votes to raise taxes.
Grover #2 is partly funded by taxes.
Grover #1 is afraid the big, bad government will take away his money.
Grover #2 is afraid the cookie monster will take away his cookies.
OK, can you tell which Grover is which now?
I bet even if they REALLY had another forty years they still couldn't get the state budget done.
If you look real close at the latest AZ Central article about missing the budget deadline you'd find that they haven't really missed the July 31, or August 1, well actually it could be August 7, no wait-- August 10, er. 11th, 2009 deadline.
That's because the dateline on the article is DECEMBER 31, 1969 (!)
So maybe the legislature invented a time machine and went back forty years so they could work all the problems out.
Although looking at how well this group works with each other, I'm not sure that even working on the budget for forty years would be good enough.
That's because the dateline on the article is DECEMBER 31, 1969 (!)
So maybe the legislature invented a time machine and went back forty years so they could work all the problems out.
Although looking at how well this group works with each other, I'm not sure that even working on the budget for forty years would be good enough.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Repost of, "Winslow Basha's to close; Super-Walmart to remain open."
NOTE: THIS IS A REPOST OF A POST ORIGINALLY TITLED, "WINSLOW BASHA'S TO CLOSE; SUPER WAL-MART TO REMAIN OPEN" THE POST WAS INFILTRATED BY A SPAM BOT SO THIS IS A REPOST WHICH WILL BE POSTED AT THE ORIGINAL DATE AND THE ORIGINAL POST WILL BE DELETED.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Winslow Basha's to close. Super Wal-Mart to remain open.
Proving some of us right several years ago.
Winslow is a two-grocery store town.
Some years back Wal-Mart wanted to expand to Super Wal-Mart (i.e. including groceries.) A number of us felt that this would eventually force either Safeway or Basha's to close, and thereby trade better paying jobs for Wal-Mart jobs.
We lost.
Wal-Mart did open Super Wal-Mart, and I can't say I'm surprised that Winslow was on the list of fourteen Basha's stores slated to close by October. Last year they changed their closing time to an hour earlier and I was honestly surprised that they weren't on the list of closures last month, right before the bankrupcty filing.
Now, I've had my problems with Basha's in the past (mostly over their recalcitrance to allow the workers to organize under UFCW if they want to-- see this post, though I have to admit I haven't faithfully kept up my boycott (though I have faithfully boycotted Wal-Mart).
Some conservatives will blame UFCW for Basha's demise. This is of course ridiculous--the UFCW never did organize Basha's, and Basha's workers earn about two dollars per hour less than their counterparts at unionized grocery stores like Safeway and Fry's, so if unions were the problem then you'd have to figure that those stores, which actually do have unions, would have gone out of business rather than Basha's. But as far as anti-union activity is concerned, Basha's is like a good-looking colt racing against Rachel Alexandra compared to Wal-Mart, the undisputed king of union-busting (recall that a Kingman Wal-Mart employee was let go some years back just for saying the word, 'union,' and it took several years before a court held that the employee was wrongfully terminated; and even then I think that Wal-Mart felt that the damages they had to pay was just part of the cost of doing business because the ultimate result is that they still have no union in Kingman or anyplace else.)
The lack of pockets as deep as out of state competitors certainly is a problem, especially if you are competing with someone like Wal-Mart (which in just about a decade has gone from just breaking into the grocery market to being the number one selling grocer in Arizona and a number of other states as well.)
The bottom line is that in a town the size of Winslow (population 8,000 including the inmates at the prison, plus several thousand more people from southern areas of the reservation who come in to shop every day) there just isn't the population base to support three supermarkets. If the same checker earns $7 an hour at Super Wal-Mart as earns $11 an hour at Basha's and $13 an hour at Safeway (roughly typical wages at each store) then clearly Wal-Mart is saving money on the front end. With them getting stuff shipped in from out of state in large quantities they save on the middle end too, and since a lot of their stuff (even including some canned foods and other groceries) is produced out of the country they save on the back end too.
Winslow Basha's bought a lot of the 4-H kids' animals at the county fair every year, which the kids usually save the money and put it in their college fund. Somehow I doubt if Wal-Mart will be buying any locally grown 4-H animals.
I understand that a lot of people shop at Wal-Mart because they don't have much money. Granted, my wife and a few other people who have joined coupon sense have learned how to shop cheaper at Basha's and Safeway than at Wal-Mart, (Wal-Mart doesn't have double, triple or quadruple coupon deals) but most people shop at Wal-Mart to save money. I understand that.
But I hope that the people (especially the Winslow city councillors at the time and former mayor Bob Bolles) who supported the Super Wal-Mart realize that just as opponents predicted at the time, they've just traded $11 an hour jobs with decent benefits for $7 an hour jobs with few benefits, thereby increasing the poverty rate in Winslow.
Winslow is a tough town and it will survive, but it will be hard for the Basha's employees (many of whom I know) who are now being dumped out onto the street during a deep recession.
Labels: Basha's, Safeway, Wal-Mart, Winslow
# posted by Eli Blake @ 8:24 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Comments:
just heard the news... another empty store on that side of the street.
sad day for Winslow...
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 18 August, 2009 23:37
Monday, August 10, 2009
Winslow Basha's to close. Super Wal-Mart to remain open.
Proving some of us right several years ago.
Winslow is a two-grocery store town.
Some years back Wal-Mart wanted to expand to Super Wal-Mart (i.e. including groceries.) A number of us felt that this would eventually force either Safeway or Basha's to close, and thereby trade better paying jobs for Wal-Mart jobs.
We lost.
Wal-Mart did open Super Wal-Mart, and I can't say I'm surprised that Winslow was on the list of fourteen Basha's stores slated to close by October. Last year they changed their closing time to an hour earlier and I was honestly surprised that they weren't on the list of closures last month, right before the bankrupcty filing.
Now, I've had my problems with Basha's in the past (mostly over their recalcitrance to allow the workers to organize under UFCW if they want to-- see this post, though I have to admit I haven't faithfully kept up my boycott (though I have faithfully boycotted Wal-Mart).
Some conservatives will blame UFCW for Basha's demise. This is of course ridiculous--the UFCW never did organize Basha's, and Basha's workers earn about two dollars per hour less than their counterparts at unionized grocery stores like Safeway and Fry's, so if unions were the problem then you'd have to figure that those stores, which actually do have unions, would have gone out of business rather than Basha's. But as far as anti-union activity is concerned, Basha's is like a good-looking colt racing against Rachel Alexandra compared to Wal-Mart, the undisputed king of union-busting (recall that a Kingman Wal-Mart employee was let go some years back just for saying the word, 'union,' and it took several years before a court held that the employee was wrongfully terminated; and even then I think that Wal-Mart felt that the damages they had to pay was just part of the cost of doing business because the ultimate result is that they still have no union in Kingman or anyplace else.)
The lack of pockets as deep as out of state competitors certainly is a problem, especially if you are competing with someone like Wal-Mart (which in just about a decade has gone from just breaking into the grocery market to being the number one selling grocer in Arizona and a number of other states as well.)
The bottom line is that in a town the size of Winslow (population 8,000 including the inmates at the prison, plus several thousand more people from southern areas of the reservation who come in to shop every day) there just isn't the population base to support three supermarkets. If the same checker earns $7 an hour at Super Wal-Mart as earns $11 an hour at Basha's and $13 an hour at Safeway (roughly typical wages at each store) then clearly Wal-Mart is saving money on the front end. With them getting stuff shipped in from out of state in large quantities they save on the middle end too, and since a lot of their stuff (even including some canned foods and other groceries) is produced out of the country they save on the back end too.
Winslow Basha's bought a lot of the 4-H kids' animals at the county fair every year, which the kids usually save the money and put it in their college fund. Somehow I doubt if Wal-Mart will be buying any locally grown 4-H animals.
I understand that a lot of people shop at Wal-Mart because they don't have much money. Granted, my wife and a few other people who have joined coupon sense have learned how to shop cheaper at Basha's and Safeway than at Wal-Mart, (Wal-Mart doesn't have double, triple or quadruple coupon deals) but most people shop at Wal-Mart to save money. I understand that.
But I hope that the people (especially the Winslow city councillors at the time and former mayor Bob Bolles) who supported the Super Wal-Mart realize that just as opponents predicted at the time, they've just traded $11 an hour jobs with decent benefits for $7 an hour jobs with few benefits, thereby increasing the poverty rate in Winslow.
Winslow is a tough town and it will survive, but it will be hard for the Basha's employees (many of whom I know) who are now being dumped out onto the street during a deep recession.
Labels: Basha's, Safeway, Wal-Mart, Winslow
# posted by Eli Blake @ 8:24 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Comments:
just heard the news... another empty store on that side of the street.
sad day for Winslow...
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 18 August, 2009 23:37
Saturday, August 08, 2009
It's time for the President to lead
With the health care debate in full swing, with members of congress and Senators out there seeing their meetings being disrupted by organized action by the right wing, I think that a lot of Democrats have at least been wondering why the President isn't taking more advantage of the absence of congress from Washington to control the news. And he could be saying (or at least have his administration saying) plenty: As Nate Silver points out, the administration has already cut taxes on 98.6% of working Americans. But not very many people know that because no one in the administration has actually bothered to point it out. In fact, with Republicans out there screeching about hypothetical tax increases that haven't even been written by anyone yet, probably more people incorrectly think the administration has already raised taxes than correctly know the administration has lowered them. This administration should also point out that a relatively modest investment in auto bailouts plus cash-for-clunkers (which total less than the amount given to just a couple of banks) has saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in factories, parts suppliers and dealerships. What are they waiting for? To win an "aw-shucks" award for being humble?
After all, isn't this the time when he has the podium all to himself if he wants it? I will grant that there are certain events (such as the North American summit and the annual presidential speech to the VFW) that he is obliged to attend, and last week was a good time for him to go on vacation, with the Senate still in session and focused on confirming Justice Sotomayor.
But that's done and over with now. Now is the time for the President to lead, to inspire. And if he wants to talk about health care then he shouldn't just go out and spout statistics like he did in the news conference a few weeks ago on the subject, he should be talking about the battle his mother had with insurance companies just to get her cancer treatment covered (that resonated on the campaign trail.) He should be talking about how our lack of preparedness for the swine flu coming back this winter is exacerbated by the fact that people with no insurance may not seek treatment right away and in the meantime could spread the virus rapidly throughout the whole population-- darn right, this is a national security issue. And one which will in the end also cost a lot of people some serious money. He should be talking about people like my neighbor who was recently ripped up by two pit bulls only a block from my house and had to be helicoptered to and spent a full week in the hospital(story is here) as she saved the lives of her young children by taking the attack herself, and why she shouldn't have to worry whether she can pay all the bills for something that was no fault of hers.
The President is at his best when he is talking about the big picture, with passion. And it's time for him to be at his best.
After all, isn't this the time when he has the podium all to himself if he wants it? I will grant that there are certain events (such as the North American summit and the annual presidential speech to the VFW) that he is obliged to attend, and last week was a good time for him to go on vacation, with the Senate still in session and focused on confirming Justice Sotomayor.
But that's done and over with now. Now is the time for the President to lead, to inspire. And if he wants to talk about health care then he shouldn't just go out and spout statistics like he did in the news conference a few weeks ago on the subject, he should be talking about the battle his mother had with insurance companies just to get her cancer treatment covered (that resonated on the campaign trail.) He should be talking about how our lack of preparedness for the swine flu coming back this winter is exacerbated by the fact that people with no insurance may not seek treatment right away and in the meantime could spread the virus rapidly throughout the whole population-- darn right, this is a national security issue. And one which will in the end also cost a lot of people some serious money. He should be talking about people like my neighbor who was recently ripped up by two pit bulls only a block from my house and had to be helicoptered to and spent a full week in the hospital(story is here) as she saved the lives of her young children by taking the attack herself, and why she shouldn't have to worry whether she can pay all the bills for something that was no fault of hers.
The President is at his best when he is talking about the big picture, with passion. And it's time for him to be at his best.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Endgame: call these two senators about the budget
The latest on the budget is that the next 48 hours will likely determine whether they get a bad budget passed or if the Governor and GOP leadership will finally have to negotiate with Democrats (perish the thought.) You know it's bad when even Robert Robb agrees that the Republican leaders have negotiated in bad faith.
They have managed to get Sen. Harper on board their bad budget (I assume that means if it passes then some state employees will be fired just for the sake of 'shrinking government' by firing some people, since that was the main condition he insisted on.) Otherwise the budget looks a lot like the versions that Governor Brewer vetoed on July 1.
As it stands now they would do away with, or at least continue the moratorium on, the equalization property tax and give away millions more by cutting the corporate tax income tax rate from 7% to less than 5% and also reduce the top personal income tax rate.
In exchange for this they would backfill some of the budget cuts and the tax cuts they are so keen for by putting the Governor's one cent sales tax plan on the ballot in November. If it passes offically one third would go to prisons and social services and two thirds to education. Of course most of that would only go to pay back what is being taken out in the tax cuts.
If this sounds like the plan they've been pushing all along, you are right.
The twist is that they still don't have enough votes. They need sixteen. The two remaining holdouts who won't vote for the sales tax referendum are Sens. Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould.
The new angle is that with Harper on board they are now twisting the arms of two moderate Republicans, the two who they didn't invite for the original June 4 vote at 3 AM when this budget was born because they would not vote for it. The two still are saying they won't support the new deal because they believe that with this kind of a deficit more tax cuts would be irresponsible, and also because of the scope of cuts to education and state services.
So they are having their arms twisted every which way.
The two are Senators
Carolyn Allen (district 8, email callen@azleg.gov and phone (602) 926-4480)
Jay Tibshraeny (district 21, email jtibshraeny@azleg.gov and phone (602) 926-4481)
If you have a chance, please take a moment to email and/or call Senators Carolyn Allen and Jay Tibshraeny and urge them not to vote for a bad budget in which voters are asked to pass a sales tax just to pay for tax cuts given mainly to corporations and the wealthy, and tell them that you appreciate their standing firm against it so far. I'm sure they are being bombarded by the right as well.
They have managed to get Sen. Harper on board their bad budget (I assume that means if it passes then some state employees will be fired just for the sake of 'shrinking government' by firing some people, since that was the main condition he insisted on.) Otherwise the budget looks a lot like the versions that Governor Brewer vetoed on July 1.
As it stands now they would do away with, or at least continue the moratorium on, the equalization property tax and give away millions more by cutting the corporate tax income tax rate from 7% to less than 5% and also reduce the top personal income tax rate.
In exchange for this they would backfill some of the budget cuts and the tax cuts they are so keen for by putting the Governor's one cent sales tax plan on the ballot in November. If it passes offically one third would go to prisons and social services and two thirds to education. Of course most of that would only go to pay back what is being taken out in the tax cuts.
If this sounds like the plan they've been pushing all along, you are right.
The twist is that they still don't have enough votes. They need sixteen. The two remaining holdouts who won't vote for the sales tax referendum are Sens. Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould.
The new angle is that with Harper on board they are now twisting the arms of two moderate Republicans, the two who they didn't invite for the original June 4 vote at 3 AM when this budget was born because they would not vote for it. The two still are saying they won't support the new deal because they believe that with this kind of a deficit more tax cuts would be irresponsible, and also because of the scope of cuts to education and state services.
So they are having their arms twisted every which way.
The two are Senators
Carolyn Allen (district 8, email callen@azleg.gov and phone (602) 926-4480)
Jay Tibshraeny (district 21, email jtibshraeny@azleg.gov and phone (602) 926-4481)
If you have a chance, please take a moment to email and/or call Senators Carolyn Allen and Jay Tibshraeny and urge them not to vote for a bad budget in which voters are asked to pass a sales tax just to pay for tax cuts given mainly to corporations and the wealthy, and tell them that you appreciate their standing firm against it so far. I'm sure they are being bombarded by the right as well.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Phony protests against health insurance reform
REMEMBER THIS UGLY SCENE?
This was what was portrayed by the media as a 'citizen riot' which stopped the Miami-Dade recount in 2000.
We now know that these were paid Republican congressional staffers who were put on a chartered plane from Washington DC and flown to Miami where they basically served two purposes; they created so much chaos that the elections board was unable to finish the recount (while also being put in fear of their personal physical safety,) and they defined the media story as angry 'ordinary citizens' being outraged that 'Democrats' were trying to 'steal' the election. The identies of the protesters were not known for several weeks and by that time we were already into the Bush presidency.
I bring this up because it seems like the GOP and their allies in the health insurance industry are apparently going back to the same playbook.
Reports coming from seperate townhall meetings held by congressmen from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Texas all have rowdy members of the audience carefully choreographed and shouting slogans to drown out the answers that the members of Congress gave to questions that were asked about health insurance reform. Apparently these folks have no interest in the answers the congressmen gave themselves but only in shouting so loud that they can't give an answer at all. In Austin, Texas after congressman Lloyd Doggett was shouted down so loudly that nobody at all could hear what he was saying, protesters outside the event followed him to his car and physically blocked him from leaving.
My own congresswoman, Ann Kirkpatrick was a bit smarter. She held a townhall last week (which I listened to)-- via teleconference. Callers who wanted to ask a question gave their name to a screener and only one was allowed on the phone at a time, and congresswoman Kirkpatrick gave intelligent, thoughtful answers. Maybe next time Lloyd Doggett will do the same thing.
If this were a genuine citizen revolt, that would be bad. Only it isn't. After it was reported that some of the protesters arrived in a group and were bused in, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs specifically fingered an organization called, "Conservatives for Patient's Rights," that organization took responsibility today for organizing the protests. And they said they will continue to do it, too. They even acknowlege that they are using the listserv for the 'teabaggers.' I guess the same group of zanies have more than one hat they can put on. Given what happened eight and a half years ago, I think it's fair to ask how many of these folks are paid Congressional staffers. It's almost funny now to hear them call things like this 'the teabagger movement' or the 'private insurance movement.' Yeah, they make me think of a movement all right, and I'll leave it there and keep it clean.
Conservatives for Patient's Rights is headed and funded (to the tune of millions of dollars) by one man-- former hospital CEO Rick Scott. Scott had to step down as CEO of the Healtcare Corporation of America, a for-profit chain of hospitals after financial fraud led to the company having to pay $1.7 million in fines. In other words, let's say he's an 'outcomes-based' kind of guy, how he gets there doesn't matter. And the outcome he wants right now is to defeat health insurance reform.
So the tactics the right is using to derail health insurance reform apparently include shouting down any attempt at a normal rational discussion, theats of violence and physical intimidation (ask congressman Doggett about that.) I guess the good news is that they must know that they can't win an open debate based on the merits of their position (if they thought they could, they would allow the debate to just go forward, feeling confident that if the facts were on their side the proposal would just cave in under its own weight, sort of George W. Bush's social security reform plan did in 2005.) So knowing that they would rather revert to the kinds of tactics that worked for them back in the Florida election dispute.
It's worth pointing out though that there are other guilty parties besides Scott for putting misinformation out there.
We now have seen two of the main righty bloggers cross the line into full out manufactured video tape. The issue in question concerns a video that was featured on Matt Drudge's site (courtesy of Andrew Breitbart) that apparently shows Obama saying his goal is to eliminate the private health insurance industry. Only it now turns out that Breitbart in fact pieced together clips of Obama speaking the words he needed and cut and pasted them sort of like old ransom notes used to be put together with words clipped from a newspaper. People who intentionally manufacture stories to fit their point of view like that give all bloggers a bad name.
This was what was portrayed by the media as a 'citizen riot' which stopped the Miami-Dade recount in 2000.
We now know that these were paid Republican congressional staffers who were put on a chartered plane from Washington DC and flown to Miami where they basically served two purposes; they created so much chaos that the elections board was unable to finish the recount (while also being put in fear of their personal physical safety,) and they defined the media story as angry 'ordinary citizens' being outraged that 'Democrats' were trying to 'steal' the election. The identies of the protesters were not known for several weeks and by that time we were already into the Bush presidency.
I bring this up because it seems like the GOP and their allies in the health insurance industry are apparently going back to the same playbook.
Reports coming from seperate townhall meetings held by congressmen from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Texas all have rowdy members of the audience carefully choreographed and shouting slogans to drown out the answers that the members of Congress gave to questions that were asked about health insurance reform. Apparently these folks have no interest in the answers the congressmen gave themselves but only in shouting so loud that they can't give an answer at all. In Austin, Texas after congressman Lloyd Doggett was shouted down so loudly that nobody at all could hear what he was saying, protesters outside the event followed him to his car and physically blocked him from leaving.
My own congresswoman, Ann Kirkpatrick was a bit smarter. She held a townhall last week (which I listened to)-- via teleconference. Callers who wanted to ask a question gave their name to a screener and only one was allowed on the phone at a time, and congresswoman Kirkpatrick gave intelligent, thoughtful answers. Maybe next time Lloyd Doggett will do the same thing.
If this were a genuine citizen revolt, that would be bad. Only it isn't. After it was reported that some of the protesters arrived in a group and were bused in, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs specifically fingered an organization called, "Conservatives for Patient's Rights," that organization took responsibility today for organizing the protests. And they said they will continue to do it, too. They even acknowlege that they are using the listserv for the 'teabaggers.' I guess the same group of zanies have more than one hat they can put on. Given what happened eight and a half years ago, I think it's fair to ask how many of these folks are paid Congressional staffers. It's almost funny now to hear them call things like this 'the teabagger movement' or the 'private insurance movement.' Yeah, they make me think of a movement all right, and I'll leave it there and keep it clean.
Conservatives for Patient's Rights is headed and funded (to the tune of millions of dollars) by one man-- former hospital CEO Rick Scott. Scott had to step down as CEO of the Healtcare Corporation of America, a for-profit chain of hospitals after financial fraud led to the company having to pay $1.7 million in fines. In other words, let's say he's an 'outcomes-based' kind of guy, how he gets there doesn't matter. And the outcome he wants right now is to defeat health insurance reform.
So the tactics the right is using to derail health insurance reform apparently include shouting down any attempt at a normal rational discussion, theats of violence and physical intimidation (ask congressman Doggett about that.) I guess the good news is that they must know that they can't win an open debate based on the merits of their position (if they thought they could, they would allow the debate to just go forward, feeling confident that if the facts were on their side the proposal would just cave in under its own weight, sort of George W. Bush's social security reform plan did in 2005.) So knowing that they would rather revert to the kinds of tactics that worked for them back in the Florida election dispute.
It's worth pointing out though that there are other guilty parties besides Scott for putting misinformation out there.
We now have seen two of the main righty bloggers cross the line into full out manufactured video tape. The issue in question concerns a video that was featured on Matt Drudge's site (courtesy of Andrew Breitbart) that apparently shows Obama saying his goal is to eliminate the private health insurance industry. Only it now turns out that Breitbart in fact pieced together clips of Obama speaking the words he needed and cut and pasted them sort of like old ransom notes used to be put together with words clipped from a newspaper. People who intentionally manufacture stories to fit their point of view like that give all bloggers a bad name.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Letting property tax holiday expire on schedule is NOT "raising taxes"
One of the biggest priorities (in fact, it was number one on their list of priorities) that Republicans in the legislature have pushed even with a deficit that dwarfs the Grand Canyon is the permanent repeal of the state equalization property tax.
The tax, designed to help school districts in parts of the state where there is less of a property tax base to begin with (like here in Navajo County, for example) affects all homeowners to a small degree but is mainly a tax on wealthy corporations and landowners.
Three years ago, Republicans in the legislature negotiated with then-Governor Napolitano a three year suspension of the tax. It remained on the books but was not assessed. The 'tax holiday' is now over and the equalization tax is due to come back this year.
Not surprisingly some businesses with highly paid lobbyists are complaining about this and calling it a 'tax increase.'
Which charge is complete and utter nonsense.
It is NOT a tax increase at all, even if it comes back in full force. It is a temporary tax reduction (a 'gift' from the state) ending on schedule. Three years ago this was agreed to by all parties, and if nothing is done it will revert to exactly the same rate schedule as it was being computed at then, and which it would still be if there had been no agreement on a temporary (there's that word again) suspension of the tax.
Suppose that the local grocery store where you live puts an item on sale. They advertise the sale, and tell you that it will end next Friday. So suppose that it ends as scheduled on Friday (just as they said it would) and the price reverts to what it was before the sale. Would you then be justified in storming in on Saturday and complaining to the store manager that they 'raised their prices?' OF COURSE NOT!! And if you did make that complaint they would laugh in your face (well, maybe they would be polite to you because they do want your business but you can be sure that when they met together in the back room to go over paperwork at the end of the day they'd have a good laugh at your expense.)
How is this any different? Three years ago all of us homeowers, but mainly these wealthy corporations benefitted from a temporary tax cut. What part of 'temporary' don't they understand? I understand it as a homeowner and will probably, if the tax goes by the wayside, see it reflected in my tax bill next year. But had the deal not been struck three years ago then everyone would have paid the same bill they paid then all along. So I have no right to complain.
That's the last time we should ever negotiate a 'temporary' suspension of a tax. Instead of being grateful for what they got, the wealthy corporations now think that this is their birthright, and their lobbyists have insisted on it (and the GOP legislature has complied in every version of the budget bill so far) regardless of the fiscal situation that the state is in. The tax will cover $250 million of the state's more than $3 billion deficit, so clearly allowing it to come back isn't the whole answer but it would take a nice slice out of the deficit.
And if you think they have grown used to this cut and think it is owed them, just think how ugly things will get when the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule in 2011. You ain't seen nothing yet.
The tax, designed to help school districts in parts of the state where there is less of a property tax base to begin with (like here in Navajo County, for example) affects all homeowners to a small degree but is mainly a tax on wealthy corporations and landowners.
Three years ago, Republicans in the legislature negotiated with then-Governor Napolitano a three year suspension of the tax. It remained on the books but was not assessed. The 'tax holiday' is now over and the equalization tax is due to come back this year.
Not surprisingly some businesses with highly paid lobbyists are complaining about this and calling it a 'tax increase.'
Which charge is complete and utter nonsense.
It is NOT a tax increase at all, even if it comes back in full force. It is a temporary tax reduction (a 'gift' from the state) ending on schedule. Three years ago this was agreed to by all parties, and if nothing is done it will revert to exactly the same rate schedule as it was being computed at then, and which it would still be if there had been no agreement on a temporary (there's that word again) suspension of the tax.
Suppose that the local grocery store where you live puts an item on sale. They advertise the sale, and tell you that it will end next Friday. So suppose that it ends as scheduled on Friday (just as they said it would) and the price reverts to what it was before the sale. Would you then be justified in storming in on Saturday and complaining to the store manager that they 'raised their prices?' OF COURSE NOT!! And if you did make that complaint they would laugh in your face (well, maybe they would be polite to you because they do want your business but you can be sure that when they met together in the back room to go over paperwork at the end of the day they'd have a good laugh at your expense.)
How is this any different? Three years ago all of us homeowers, but mainly these wealthy corporations benefitted from a temporary tax cut. What part of 'temporary' don't they understand? I understand it as a homeowner and will probably, if the tax goes by the wayside, see it reflected in my tax bill next year. But had the deal not been struck three years ago then everyone would have paid the same bill they paid then all along. So I have no right to complain.
That's the last time we should ever negotiate a 'temporary' suspension of a tax. Instead of being grateful for what they got, the wealthy corporations now think that this is their birthright, and their lobbyists have insisted on it (and the GOP legislature has complied in every version of the budget bill so far) regardless of the fiscal situation that the state is in. The tax will cover $250 million of the state's more than $3 billion deficit, so clearly allowing it to come back isn't the whole answer but it would take a nice slice out of the deficit.
And if you think they have grown used to this cut and think it is owed them, just think how ugly things will get when the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule in 2011. You ain't seen nothing yet.
The rare Republic editorial that is on the mark
The Arizona Republic, whose viewpoints I rarely agree with (though Benson is a good editorial cartoonist,) in their editorial on Sunday, Enough already, stop wrangling and pass the budget got it pretty much correct.
Arizonans are disgusted by the infernal wrangling, the partisanship, politics and ideological rigidity at the Legislature.
It's August, a month into the fiscal year. Arizona has a $3.4 billion budget shortfall. And we still don't have a solution that makes cuts without gutting state services, gives revenue a temporary boost and watches out for Arizona's long-term economic health.
The House voted out a budget package last week, one with plenty of warts but acceptable to Gov. Jan Brewer. It included a ballot measure allowing voters to decide on a three-year sales-tax increase.
But the Senate stalled. Both houses are looking for a straight GOP vote, and Sen. President Bob Burns failed to muster enough support.
After going through the dismal economic numbers, they continue
We can't cut our way to economic stability. We need an emergency dose of revenue, and the fastest, most effective way is through a sales tax.
It is astonishing and infuriating that in the name of ideological purity, some GOP legislators refuse to even put the question to voters.
They'd rather slash spending, leaving core services in tatters. Sen. Ron Gould won't even talk of a ballot measure. Sen. Pamela Gorman has remained a holdout, despite her leadership position as majority whip.
Now, they did then take a shot at Democrats for opposing the Governor's plan to refer a temporary sales tax hike to the ballot. They missed the reason for that though. While a sales tax is regressive and hits poor people the hardest, Democrats were nevertheless willing to back the plan if the permanent elimination of the state equalization property tax was taken out of the GOP budget. But it seems pointless and counterproductive to simply tax poor people to backfill a hole in the budget caused by a tax cut for rich people and corporations. The GOP then tried to get even more conservative Republicans to vote for their plan by adding an additional $400 million income tax cut, to take effect next year. By then that would have pretty much eaten up the entire sales tax for two years, after which the sales tax would begin to expire and the other tax cuts would be permanent.
Democrats understand that the voters are capable of making up their minds on whether they support a sales tax hike or not, but they aren't willing to support a potential tax increse just to pay for tax cuts elsewhere.
However the line I highlighted in bold print up there pretty much summarizes the situation. They want a straight GOP vote-- only that has proven impossible to get between the incompetence of the leadership, a party that has proven itself entirely incapable of governing and ideologues who dominate the floor and have only a single agenda-- to downsize government as much as they can and see the fiscal crisis as their best opportunity to do so (even to the point of literally, as Jack Harper made clear in his offer to support the budget if they fired five percent of state workers currently on payroll in every state agency.)
Democrats have not been consulted in good faith on the budget at all. During the regular session they were frozen out of budget negotiations from day one. At the very end when it became clear that the whole rotten June 4 budget deal would come crashing down under the weight of the Governor's veto without the sales tax referral and that there would not be enough GOP votes to pass it, GOP leaders tried to get Democrats to provide the necessary votes on only one item-- the sales tax. Given what else was in the budget, they justifiably said, 'no.'
During the special session GOP leaders apparently were negotiating in good faith with Democrats when they abruptly, minutes before they were supposed to meet, canceled the meeting and announced a deal with the Governor instead. In other words they had been negotiating with her all the time secretly. Well, that deal fell apart and I guess they got what they deserved-- except that we all suffer for it.
The editorial goes on:
Next week, the Senate will make another run at getting enough GOP votes to approve the House-passed package.
Frankly, Brewer made too many concessions in order to get support from her own party. The sales-tax increase would be 1 cent per dollar in 2010 and 2011 and drop to a half-cent in 2012. This is not a fiscally prudent move, when the recovery is expected to be so slow, federal stimulus money will be used up and so many budget gimmicks need to be cleaned up.
The budget deal also has a $400 million cut in corporate and individual income taxes starting in January 2011. Why make that decision now? It should be taken up when state finances are in better shape....
If the Republican votes aren't there next week, GOP leaders and Brewer may have to negotiate with Democrats.
Really? That is actually an option? I hope so.
This does make it very, very clear that the government works best with Democrats in control of either one house of the legislature or the Governor's office. When Republicans have controlled all of government over the past couple of decades Arizona has had one Governor impeached, another resign in disgrace, the $1 billion alt-fuels scandal (seems sort of quaint compared to today's hole but it is the fiscal disaster that came to define the administation of Calamity Jane.)
And then there is today's disfunctional legislature that can't even make things work within their own party.
Maybe it is time they negotiate with Democrats, and act like adults about it.
Arizonans are disgusted by the infernal wrangling, the partisanship, politics and ideological rigidity at the Legislature.
It's August, a month into the fiscal year. Arizona has a $3.4 billion budget shortfall. And we still don't have a solution that makes cuts without gutting state services, gives revenue a temporary boost and watches out for Arizona's long-term economic health.
The House voted out a budget package last week, one with plenty of warts but acceptable to Gov. Jan Brewer. It included a ballot measure allowing voters to decide on a three-year sales-tax increase.
But the Senate stalled. Both houses are looking for a straight GOP vote, and Sen. President Bob Burns failed to muster enough support.
After going through the dismal economic numbers, they continue
We can't cut our way to economic stability. We need an emergency dose of revenue, and the fastest, most effective way is through a sales tax.
It is astonishing and infuriating that in the name of ideological purity, some GOP legislators refuse to even put the question to voters.
They'd rather slash spending, leaving core services in tatters. Sen. Ron Gould won't even talk of a ballot measure. Sen. Pamela Gorman has remained a holdout, despite her leadership position as majority whip.
Now, they did then take a shot at Democrats for opposing the Governor's plan to refer a temporary sales tax hike to the ballot. They missed the reason for that though. While a sales tax is regressive and hits poor people the hardest, Democrats were nevertheless willing to back the plan if the permanent elimination of the state equalization property tax was taken out of the GOP budget. But it seems pointless and counterproductive to simply tax poor people to backfill a hole in the budget caused by a tax cut for rich people and corporations. The GOP then tried to get even more conservative Republicans to vote for their plan by adding an additional $400 million income tax cut, to take effect next year. By then that would have pretty much eaten up the entire sales tax for two years, after which the sales tax would begin to expire and the other tax cuts would be permanent.
Democrats understand that the voters are capable of making up their minds on whether they support a sales tax hike or not, but they aren't willing to support a potential tax increse just to pay for tax cuts elsewhere.
However the line I highlighted in bold print up there pretty much summarizes the situation. They want a straight GOP vote-- only that has proven impossible to get between the incompetence of the leadership, a party that has proven itself entirely incapable of governing and ideologues who dominate the floor and have only a single agenda-- to downsize government as much as they can and see the fiscal crisis as their best opportunity to do so (even to the point of literally, as Jack Harper made clear in his offer to support the budget if they fired five percent of state workers currently on payroll in every state agency.)
Democrats have not been consulted in good faith on the budget at all. During the regular session they were frozen out of budget negotiations from day one. At the very end when it became clear that the whole rotten June 4 budget deal would come crashing down under the weight of the Governor's veto without the sales tax referral and that there would not be enough GOP votes to pass it, GOP leaders tried to get Democrats to provide the necessary votes on only one item-- the sales tax. Given what else was in the budget, they justifiably said, 'no.'
During the special session GOP leaders apparently were negotiating in good faith with Democrats when they abruptly, minutes before they were supposed to meet, canceled the meeting and announced a deal with the Governor instead. In other words they had been negotiating with her all the time secretly. Well, that deal fell apart and I guess they got what they deserved-- except that we all suffer for it.
The editorial goes on:
Next week, the Senate will make another run at getting enough GOP votes to approve the House-passed package.
Frankly, Brewer made too many concessions in order to get support from her own party. The sales-tax increase would be 1 cent per dollar in 2010 and 2011 and drop to a half-cent in 2012. This is not a fiscally prudent move, when the recovery is expected to be so slow, federal stimulus money will be used up and so many budget gimmicks need to be cleaned up.
The budget deal also has a $400 million cut in corporate and individual income taxes starting in January 2011. Why make that decision now? It should be taken up when state finances are in better shape....
If the Republican votes aren't there next week, GOP leaders and Brewer may have to negotiate with Democrats.
Really? That is actually an option? I hope so.
This does make it very, very clear that the government works best with Democrats in control of either one house of the legislature or the Governor's office. When Republicans have controlled all of government over the past couple of decades Arizona has had one Governor impeached, another resign in disgrace, the $1 billion alt-fuels scandal (seems sort of quaint compared to today's hole but it is the fiscal disaster that came to define the administation of Calamity Jane.)
And then there is today's disfunctional legislature that can't even make things work within their own party.
Maybe it is time they negotiate with Democrats, and act like adults about it.
Voters like Congress better than the Arizona legislature
According to a June survey, the Arizona legislature is less popular than Congress. And when you look at it more closely it's even worse.
by Amy B Wang
The Arizona Republic
Two-thirds of Arizonans who participated in a research panel are dissatisfied with how the state Legislature is dealing with Arizona's budget and tax issues, according to a June report by the Morrison Institute.
Two-thirds is about 66%. In contrast, the current disapproval rating for Congress (which has never been very good, because Congress has been a favorite punching bag for people to blame things on for decades) is 60.8% in the current RCP polling average.
But it gets worse than that. Most of the polls in the RCP average are not just surveys of 'adults' but most are instead surveys of 'likely voters' (though some may split the difference and use 'registered voters.') This filters out people who may not really care very much and may not even care enough to bother to actually register or show up at the polls and vote.
However, the Arizona Republic article goes on to say:
Fewer than half of the respondents said they kept tabs on current public-policy processes, including news about the Arizona state budget.
When researchers narrowed it down to this group, the rate of those dissatisfied with state lawmakers jumped to 80 percent.
So among people who are actually paying attention, four out of five disapproved with the job the legislature was doing-- in June. The language may not have specifically said, 'likely voters' but it's an almost automatic assumption that the people who are paying attention to the legislature would probably be considered 'likely voters' with very few exceptions. So out of a group of voters likely to vote next year, the approval rating for the legislature was 20% (assuming that we generously count all those who don't 'disapprove' as 'approve' and so give the lege the assumed support of all those who say they have 'no opinion,' 'refuse to answer' or 'aren't sure'-- really, we're doing everything we can here to help them out.) Twenty percent approval is dangerously into 'throw the bums out' territory.
Ah, but that doesn't even tell the whole story. Note that this survey was taken during JUNE. June was the last month of the scheduled regular session. Likely the survey was taken after the June 4 budget vote which would have decimated schools and state agencies while giving away a quarter billion dollar tax cut, and during which relations between the Governor and the Republican leadership in the legislature got so bad that she went to court and sued them to try and get them to send her the budget so she could veto it. However, since then we've gotten no budget, had a full month of special session and still no budget (though some of the proposals we've seen are even worse than the June 4 budget.) I doubt if ANYONE thinks that the legislature is more popular (or even still is as popular) today compared to where it was in June.
Pity the poor legislators. I wonder what the state legislative GOP leaders would say if someone pointed out to them that more likely voters approve of the job that Nancy Pelosi's Congress is doing, than approve of the job they are doing.
Then again, earlier this year Congress was able to pass, and the President did sign, a budget.
by Amy B Wang
The Arizona Republic
Two-thirds of Arizonans who participated in a research panel are dissatisfied with how the state Legislature is dealing with Arizona's budget and tax issues, according to a June report by the Morrison Institute.
Two-thirds is about 66%. In contrast, the current disapproval rating for Congress (which has never been very good, because Congress has been a favorite punching bag for people to blame things on for decades) is 60.8% in the current RCP polling average.
But it gets worse than that. Most of the polls in the RCP average are not just surveys of 'adults' but most are instead surveys of 'likely voters' (though some may split the difference and use 'registered voters.') This filters out people who may not really care very much and may not even care enough to bother to actually register or show up at the polls and vote.
However, the Arizona Republic article goes on to say:
Fewer than half of the respondents said they kept tabs on current public-policy processes, including news about the Arizona state budget.
When researchers narrowed it down to this group, the rate of those dissatisfied with state lawmakers jumped to 80 percent.
So among people who are actually paying attention, four out of five disapproved with the job the legislature was doing-- in June. The language may not have specifically said, 'likely voters' but it's an almost automatic assumption that the people who are paying attention to the legislature would probably be considered 'likely voters' with very few exceptions. So out of a group of voters likely to vote next year, the approval rating for the legislature was 20% (assuming that we generously count all those who don't 'disapprove' as 'approve' and so give the lege the assumed support of all those who say they have 'no opinion,' 'refuse to answer' or 'aren't sure'-- really, we're doing everything we can here to help them out.) Twenty percent approval is dangerously into 'throw the bums out' territory.
Ah, but that doesn't even tell the whole story. Note that this survey was taken during JUNE. June was the last month of the scheduled regular session. Likely the survey was taken after the June 4 budget vote which would have decimated schools and state agencies while giving away a quarter billion dollar tax cut, and during which relations between the Governor and the Republican leadership in the legislature got so bad that she went to court and sued them to try and get them to send her the budget so she could veto it. However, since then we've gotten no budget, had a full month of special session and still no budget (though some of the proposals we've seen are even worse than the June 4 budget.) I doubt if ANYONE thinks that the legislature is more popular (or even still is as popular) today compared to where it was in June.
Pity the poor legislators. I wonder what the state legislative GOP leaders would say if someone pointed out to them that more likely voters approve of the job that Nancy Pelosi's Congress is doing, than approve of the job they are doing.
Then again, earlier this year Congress was able to pass, and the President did sign, a budget.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Price for Harper's vote: Fire people, especially in award-winning Auditor General's Office
The latest update from the lege is that Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise) has reached an agreement with the Governor to get his vote to refer a sales tax hike to the November ballot (the reason why this was already a bad deal before Harper became the critical vote is summarized nicely in Rep. Daniel Patterson (D-Tucson)'s post right here.
The catch is that Harper will only vote for the referral if all state agencies cut 5% of their staff. No, that's not a 5% across the board budget cut, it's a 5% across the board staff cut. Of course these are agencies that have already eliminated unnecessary positions and gone along with state hiring freezes (remember those were implemented during the past few bad budget years) so what he means is that in order to get his vote, he wants to see heads roll. He wants to watch them fire people-- and in every state agency, no matter how critical they are.
Only in the bizarre, twisted world of Arizona Republican politics would a demented creation like Harper be allowed to wield that kind of power.
But that's only the beginning of what he wants.
He also wants to screw over two of his GOP colleagues and kill a downtown redevelopment project in Tucson. The two Republican Senators from Tucson, Jonathan Paton and Al Melvin, are already on board the GOP budget. Some southern Arizona blogs are all over them about that now that Harper is pulling his stunt. But Paton and Melvin have apparently folded like a house of cards. All I can say to that is, join the club. My own Republican Senator, Sylvia "uranium mining can't be dangerous because the earth is 6000 years old" Allen, already voted for the June 4 budget (which is more or less being revived in this one) which will make devastating cuts to rural hospitals and likely force every single rural health clinic around here to close. Maybe Tom Chabin is right and the voters are getting what we deserve, but I don't think so. Republicans have been promising for years that they would cut taxes for the wealthy and cut budgets and shrink government, well guess what folks, it wasn't just rhetoric. I have confidence that the voters will fix this problem next year (but it will be rocky going until then.)
But the really ridiculous part of what Harper wants is a 50% cut to the Auditor General's Office. The Auditor General is a nonpartisan office which is tasked with making sure that all the funds (or what is left of them) that the state provides to local governments, school districts and other entities are accounted for and spent responsibly. So apparently Sen. Harper is OK with more waste, fraud, mismanagement and even embezzlement of public funds because these are the things that the office of the Auditor General is supposed to prevent and protect us taxpayers from.
I should also add that the Auditor General's office has consistently been recognized as one of the best run offices in the state (maybe there is something to be said for running a non-partisan office with professionals who stay focused on doing their job.) In fact, Bill Thomson, the Deputy Auditor General, was recently honored with the Administrator of the Year award, given by that well-known hotbed of radical ultra-liberalism, the BYU Marriott school of Business Management.
Which makes me wonder. Why would Senator Harper single out the Auditor General's office for a 50% cut? Is it because he wants there to be more waste and fraud in public funds so that someday in the future he can find an example and use it to advance his own sick agenda? Or is it perhaps something a bit closer to home-- he knows someone who is screwing the taxpayers personally by embezzling funds, and he wants to try and protect them from those nosy auditors?
The real crime is that the rest of the Republicans in the legislature will probably vote for this and the Governor will sign it.
UPDATE: This did NOT get voted on. Apparently other Republican legislators balked at the idea of blanket-firing thousands of state workers for no other reason than to get one vote in the state senate. A small victory for sanity.
The catch is that Harper will only vote for the referral if all state agencies cut 5% of their staff. No, that's not a 5% across the board budget cut, it's a 5% across the board staff cut. Of course these are agencies that have already eliminated unnecessary positions and gone along with state hiring freezes (remember those were implemented during the past few bad budget years) so what he means is that in order to get his vote, he wants to see heads roll. He wants to watch them fire people-- and in every state agency, no matter how critical they are.
Only in the bizarre, twisted world of Arizona Republican politics would a demented creation like Harper be allowed to wield that kind of power.
But that's only the beginning of what he wants.
He also wants to screw over two of his GOP colleagues and kill a downtown redevelopment project in Tucson. The two Republican Senators from Tucson, Jonathan Paton and Al Melvin, are already on board the GOP budget. Some southern Arizona blogs are all over them about that now that Harper is pulling his stunt. But Paton and Melvin have apparently folded like a house of cards. All I can say to that is, join the club. My own Republican Senator, Sylvia "uranium mining can't be dangerous because the earth is 6000 years old" Allen, already voted for the June 4 budget (which is more or less being revived in this one) which will make devastating cuts to rural hospitals and likely force every single rural health clinic around here to close. Maybe Tom Chabin is right and the voters are getting what we deserve, but I don't think so. Republicans have been promising for years that they would cut taxes for the wealthy and cut budgets and shrink government, well guess what folks, it wasn't just rhetoric. I have confidence that the voters will fix this problem next year (but it will be rocky going until then.)
But the really ridiculous part of what Harper wants is a 50% cut to the Auditor General's Office. The Auditor General is a nonpartisan office which is tasked with making sure that all the funds (or what is left of them) that the state provides to local governments, school districts and other entities are accounted for and spent responsibly. So apparently Sen. Harper is OK with more waste, fraud, mismanagement and even embezzlement of public funds because these are the things that the office of the Auditor General is supposed to prevent and protect us taxpayers from.
I should also add that the Auditor General's office has consistently been recognized as one of the best run offices in the state (maybe there is something to be said for running a non-partisan office with professionals who stay focused on doing their job.) In fact, Bill Thomson, the Deputy Auditor General, was recently honored with the Administrator of the Year award, given by that well-known hotbed of radical ultra-liberalism, the BYU Marriott school of Business Management.
Which makes me wonder. Why would Senator Harper single out the Auditor General's office for a 50% cut? Is it because he wants there to be more waste and fraud in public funds so that someday in the future he can find an example and use it to advance his own sick agenda? Or is it perhaps something a bit closer to home-- he knows someone who is screwing the taxpayers personally by embezzling funds, and he wants to try and protect them from those nosy auditors?
The real crime is that the rest of the Republicans in the legislature will probably vote for this and the Governor will sign it.
UPDATE: This did NOT get voted on. Apparently other Republican legislators balked at the idea of blanket-firing thousands of state workers for no other reason than to get one vote in the state senate. A small victory for sanity.
If they really had a case against health care reform they wouldn't have to throw spitwads like this
I'm deducing that the right doesn't have much in the way of arguments for why we shouldn't have health care reform. Sure, they have a point about the cost, but not a very good one since they had no problem with running up the deficit by at least a trillion dollars three times during the Bush administration: for the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cuts, for the Iraq war and for the medicare prescription drug 'benefit' (which actually benefits the pharmaceutical industry, but I digress.)
So having nothing else to go on, they are resorting to trying to scare people about something that isn't even in the bill.
What the bill does say as that every five years seniors are entitled to VOLUNTARILY consult with a physician about their long-term health and to go over whether they have a living will, etc.
But you wouldn't know that if you listened to conservative talk radio or watched their television ads.
They have deliberately distorted a small, voluntary and logical provision in the bill to claim that seniors will be denied health care and even up to and including forcibly euthanized.
Not that there is anything at all in this bill about even voluntary euthanasia (which is still illegal in 48 states and there is absolutely nothing in any of the various health care bills to come out of committee which changes that.) But hey, if you can't get away with just a small lie I guess they figure that a whopper is better.
So having nothing else to go on, they are resorting to trying to scare people about something that isn't even in the bill.
What the bill does say as that every five years seniors are entitled to VOLUNTARILY consult with a physician about their long-term health and to go over whether they have a living will, etc.
But you wouldn't know that if you listened to conservative talk radio or watched their television ads.
They have deliberately distorted a small, voluntary and logical provision in the bill to claim that seniors will be denied health care and even up to and including forcibly euthanized.
Not that there is anything at all in this bill about even voluntary euthanasia (which is still illegal in 48 states and there is absolutely nothing in any of the various health care bills to come out of committee which changes that.) But hey, if you can't get away with just a small lie I guess they figure that a whopper is better.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Even dumber than selling the capitol
The GOP legislature has a new way to finance giving away a $250 million property tax cut and $400 million income tax cut, heavily weighted towards corporations and the wealthy who lobbied for these cuts.
They want to sell the state capitol and other state buildings and then rent them back.
So what is even dumber than that?
How about doing it right now, when the market for commercial real estate in Arizona is near its bottom?
Not only sell the capitol, but time it to make darn sure the state gets the lowest possible price for it.
Maybe they should consider taxing whatever they are smoking, because it's obviously pretty potent stuff.
They want to sell the state capitol and other state buildings and then rent them back.
So what is even dumber than that?
How about doing it right now, when the market for commercial real estate in Arizona is near its bottom?
Not only sell the capitol, but time it to make darn sure the state gets the lowest possible price for it.
Maybe they should consider taxing whatever they are smoking, because it's obviously pretty potent stuff.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Bill to clean up the environment makes things worse instead
Hat tip to KNAU which profiled this story on air this morning (funny how public radio does a better job of investigative journalism than for profit private outfits):
"Black liquor."
That's what they call the mix of sludge that comes out of a paper mill when trees are ground to pulp.
Add some gasoline to it, and voila! A useful fuel that the paper mill can use to power itself.
At least that was the theory that Congress was operating under two years ago when they revised a 2005 bill to allow for a big tax credit for paper mills ($.50 per gallon of gasoline when blended with an alternative fuel and used internally.)
Only it may be another example of the law of unintended consequences.
Paper mills that deal with recycled paper (like the Catalyst mill near Snowflake, or in other words not that far from where I live) don't make the stuff. So they don't qualify for the big tax credit.
Which in turn means that they may have to shut down because mills that mill fresh trees are getting what amounts to a big subsidy.
Stop and think about this for a moment, folks.
The net effect of this 'alternative energy bill' will be to shut down paper mills that deal with recycled paper. Hence that will mean more logging, more paper in landfills (that's the double whammy there), more pollution (since traditional paper mills make quite a lot more than recycled paper does-- I well remember living in the beautiful community of Missoula, Montana and smelling the distinctive odor of the paper mill every morning.) You don't smell the paper mill when you're in Snowflake (though that may be because the pig farm masks it.) Throw in fuel that is used by loggers to clear roads and drive in logging equipment (not to mention the pollution that goes along with it) and I doubt if even the original intent of the bill, to save energy actually does any of that.
"Black liquor."
That's what they call the mix of sludge that comes out of a paper mill when trees are ground to pulp.
Add some gasoline to it, and voila! A useful fuel that the paper mill can use to power itself.
At least that was the theory that Congress was operating under two years ago when they revised a 2005 bill to allow for a big tax credit for paper mills ($.50 per gallon of gasoline when blended with an alternative fuel and used internally.)
Only it may be another example of the law of unintended consequences.
Paper mills that deal with recycled paper (like the Catalyst mill near Snowflake, or in other words not that far from where I live) don't make the stuff. So they don't qualify for the big tax credit.
Which in turn means that they may have to shut down because mills that mill fresh trees are getting what amounts to a big subsidy.
Stop and think about this for a moment, folks.
The net effect of this 'alternative energy bill' will be to shut down paper mills that deal with recycled paper. Hence that will mean more logging, more paper in landfills (that's the double whammy there), more pollution (since traditional paper mills make quite a lot more than recycled paper does-- I well remember living in the beautiful community of Missoula, Montana and smelling the distinctive odor of the paper mill every morning.) You don't smell the paper mill when you're in Snowflake (though that may be because the pig farm masks it.) Throw in fuel that is used by loggers to clear roads and drive in logging equipment (not to mention the pollution that goes along with it) and I doubt if even the original intent of the bill, to save energy actually does any of that.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Gates matter requires some questions.
The right has been raising all sorts of flack over the recent incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and a Cambridge police officer.
But their sense of outrage doesn't bear closer inspection. To begin with, they questioned President Obama (who acknowledged that Gates is a friend of his) defending Gates by saying that the Cambridge police acted 'stupidly.' But then they always preface this by saying that 'nobody knows what happened' before trying to claim that the officer was right.
Only if in fact 'nobody knows what happened,' why are they assuming that the police report is right? It's a fact that in America there are good cops (who I think are the majority of officers in fact) and bad cops. However police reports always paint the officer in the best light and the person who was arrested in the worst light. That may be accurate, and it may not. But to start off an argument with 'nobody knows what happens' and then go from there by one version of events is hypocritical.
Ignoring the obvious question of whether Gates would have been confronted in this way if he were white, one wonders what a police officer was doing inside the foyer of Gates' home once in fact Gates had produced proof that he owned the house. Certainly the President was correct that the police acted 'stupidly' just based on the fact that the officer stood there and argued with Gates for awhile before turning to leave.
He then says that Gates followed him outside and continued the argument. Gates denies this, but even if it were true it's reasonable to ask why not just leave the grounds. If an angry man standing on his porch is hurling insults at the police, then the easiest way to defuse that, given that no crime was committed in the first place would be for the police to just pile into their cars and drive away.
And here I'm being generous and (as I noted earlier) assuming that the police report version is correct and Gates is not.
But their sense of outrage doesn't bear closer inspection. To begin with, they questioned President Obama (who acknowledged that Gates is a friend of his) defending Gates by saying that the Cambridge police acted 'stupidly.' But then they always preface this by saying that 'nobody knows what happened' before trying to claim that the officer was right.
Only if in fact 'nobody knows what happened,' why are they assuming that the police report is right? It's a fact that in America there are good cops (who I think are the majority of officers in fact) and bad cops. However police reports always paint the officer in the best light and the person who was arrested in the worst light. That may be accurate, and it may not. But to start off an argument with 'nobody knows what happens' and then go from there by one version of events is hypocritical.
Ignoring the obvious question of whether Gates would have been confronted in this way if he were white, one wonders what a police officer was doing inside the foyer of Gates' home once in fact Gates had produced proof that he owned the house. Certainly the President was correct that the police acted 'stupidly' just based on the fact that the officer stood there and argued with Gates for awhile before turning to leave.
He then says that Gates followed him outside and continued the argument. Gates denies this, but even if it were true it's reasonable to ask why not just leave the grounds. If an angry man standing on his porch is hurling insults at the police, then the easiest way to defuse that, given that no crime was committed in the first place would be for the police to just pile into their cars and drive away.
And here I'm being generous and (as I noted earlier) assuming that the police report version is correct and Gates is not.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Now is the time the President's supporters need to step up
Much has been made about the President's stepping up and taking on Sen. Jim DeMint who pretty much came out and said that the plan is to delay, then defeat the Obama health care proposal so that it could become Obama's 'Waterloo.'
The President was exactly right to shine a spotlight on DeMint's remark since it makes it very, very crystal clear that the focus of Republicans in Washington is not to reform anything but to defeat the President, pure and simple.
And considering that we have a for-profit health system in which sick people and their very lives are treated as a commodity and bought and sold like stocks and bonds, and in which those who are uninsured and can't pay are sent to the back of the line and often receive worse health care than in many third world countries, there needs to be some serious reform.
But here is my question: WHY DID THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO CALL OUT SENATOR DEMINT PERSONALLY? Where the HECK are his supporters?
Sure, he could have sent Joe Biden out, as the traditional job of the Vice President is to get his hands dirty taking on the opposition. However sending out the Gaffe-prone Biden, who was chosen mainly because he is qualified to be President (imagine that) if something should befall Mr. Obama, would be taking a big risk in itself. So not finding any other supporters willing to call out Senator DeMint, the President decided he had to do it. And he did it very effectively, no question about that. But it makes one wonder why he had to do it at all. Come on, Democrats-- quit standing on the sidelines. This will only get done if everyone, especially elected office holders, get behind reform.
The President was exactly right to shine a spotlight on DeMint's remark since it makes it very, very crystal clear that the focus of Republicans in Washington is not to reform anything but to defeat the President, pure and simple.
And considering that we have a for-profit health system in which sick people and their very lives are treated as a commodity and bought and sold like stocks and bonds, and in which those who are uninsured and can't pay are sent to the back of the line and often receive worse health care than in many third world countries, there needs to be some serious reform.
But here is my question: WHY DID THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO CALL OUT SENATOR DEMINT PERSONALLY? Where the HECK are his supporters?
Sure, he could have sent Joe Biden out, as the traditional job of the Vice President is to get his hands dirty taking on the opposition. However sending out the Gaffe-prone Biden, who was chosen mainly because he is qualified to be President (imagine that) if something should befall Mr. Obama, would be taking a big risk in itself. So not finding any other supporters willing to call out Senator DeMint, the President decided he had to do it. And he did it very effectively, no question about that. But it makes one wonder why he had to do it at all. Come on, Democrats-- quit standing on the sidelines. This will only get done if everyone, especially elected office holders, get behind reform.
Bipartisan Senate vote kills the F-22
In this age of party-line votes, a very interesting vote came about in the Senate today.
At issue was $1.75 billion to build seven more F-22 fighters. We now have 87 of them and the Pentagon agrees with the administration that we don't need any more. The plane has not been used on a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it has become the epitome of the modern-military industrial complex-- a hugely expensive piece of military hardware that we are practically bursting at the gills with now and which even the military wants more of about as much as they want more saddles for horse-mounted cavalry units. The Obama administration felt so strongly about this program and how useless the F-22 is that the President issued his first veto threat if this were to remain in the defense authorization bill.
In fact, the only reason the F-22 has lasted this long is that it is produced by Lockheed-Martin which employs production workers in most states.
The debate today focused largely on economics-- the economics of laying people off during a recession.
I can certainly understand that argument but my response would be why Senators who protested loudly about jobs (like Georgia's Saxby Chambliss, in whose state the largest number of workers are located) didn't feel that way back when we were talking about the stimulus. Ironically, a co-sponsor of the measure to delete the funding for the F-22's, Carl Levin of Michigan (along with John McCain, who considers the F-22 to be a waste of money and a detriment to the military) is from a state where thousands of auto workers only have a job today because of massive Government intervention in GM and Chrysler, jobs that Chambliss wanted to see disappear.
However, while one can make a case for saving jobs at automobile factories that make a product that people will use, it is hard to make a similar case for saving jobs at a factory producing an aircraft that few people will ever fly and which has so many problems that it has never actually been flown in a war zone.
The vote in the Senate reflects the confused politics of the F-22. The roll call vote was 58-40 to kill the plane. Democrats voted 42-14 to kill it. Republicans voted to keep making the plane, but by 25-15. The Senate's two independents were also split, with Bernard Sanders wanting to ax the F-22 program and Joe Lieberman in favor of continuing to build it.
Ultimately killing the program was the right thing to do. It is hard to get action sometimes in a body where so many competing interests are at work but I commend the Senate for this vote. And it is a reminder that every now and then a bipartisan coalition will form to do the right thing.
At issue was $1.75 billion to build seven more F-22 fighters. We now have 87 of them and the Pentagon agrees with the administration that we don't need any more. The plane has not been used on a single sortie in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it has become the epitome of the modern-military industrial complex-- a hugely expensive piece of military hardware that we are practically bursting at the gills with now and which even the military wants more of about as much as they want more saddles for horse-mounted cavalry units. The Obama administration felt so strongly about this program and how useless the F-22 is that the President issued his first veto threat if this were to remain in the defense authorization bill.
In fact, the only reason the F-22 has lasted this long is that it is produced by Lockheed-Martin which employs production workers in most states.
The debate today focused largely on economics-- the economics of laying people off during a recession.
I can certainly understand that argument but my response would be why Senators who protested loudly about jobs (like Georgia's Saxby Chambliss, in whose state the largest number of workers are located) didn't feel that way back when we were talking about the stimulus. Ironically, a co-sponsor of the measure to delete the funding for the F-22's, Carl Levin of Michigan (along with John McCain, who considers the F-22 to be a waste of money and a detriment to the military) is from a state where thousands of auto workers only have a job today because of massive Government intervention in GM and Chrysler, jobs that Chambliss wanted to see disappear.
However, while one can make a case for saving jobs at automobile factories that make a product that people will use, it is hard to make a similar case for saving jobs at a factory producing an aircraft that few people will ever fly and which has so many problems that it has never actually been flown in a war zone.
The vote in the Senate reflects the confused politics of the F-22. The roll call vote was 58-40 to kill the plane. Democrats voted 42-14 to kill it. Republicans voted to keep making the plane, but by 25-15. The Senate's two independents were also split, with Bernard Sanders wanting to ax the F-22 program and Joe Lieberman in favor of continuing to build it.
Ultimately killing the program was the right thing to do. It is hard to get action sometimes in a body where so many competing interests are at work but I commend the Senate for this vote. And it is a reminder that every now and then a bipartisan coalition will form to do the right thing.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Walter Cronkite, the man who took us all to the moon
Walter Cronkite, the legendary anchor of the "CBS Evening News," has died at the age of 92.
His was the voice that guided America through triumphs and tragedies, a steady, clear voice in a turbullent and unpredictable age.
It was Cronkite who told Americans about the Cuban missile crisis, the assassinations of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Civil Rights struggle, Vietnam and the anti-war protests, Roe vs. Wade, Watergate, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Three Mile Island and the Iran hostage crisis. His calm but strong voice let us all know what was going on.
Cronkite's professionalism extended to every area of the news (although there were times, such as his coverage of the Kennedy assassination when glimpses of a man who was just an American like all of us came through.) But there was one day on which he felt it was important to speak out. It came following the Tet Offensive in the Vietnamese War, an event in which while Americans were able to beat back Viet Cong attacks at every turn, the enemy was able to prove that the war had not been won (despite statements to that effect by American planners) and that they could still launch attacks in virtually every area of South Vietnam. Walter Cronkite felt then that he had a duty and an obligation to use his podium to express his belief that the war was unwinnable. To be silent any longer and let more young Americans bleed their lives away once he realized that would not have been in his character.
That is not the one area of reporting where he will be most remembered though.
Monday will be the fortieth anniversary of that day when the Eagle soared over the airless surface of a barren and alien new world. Forty years ago Apollo 11 reached the moon and Neil Armstrong set his foot down on its dry, lifeless and dusty surface. Much has been said and written about it. But far from just another news story, reporting on America's space program was Walter Cronkite's favorite topic. It was his passion, and a passion which he shared with millions of Americans. There are those who claim that what interest in space we have originated with television shows like Star Trek or movies like Star Wars. Perhaps, but I don't believe it. No, it originated with a news anchor, someone who took the time and really felt how important it was to explain to us what it took to put a giant spaceship into space and to explore a place which had captivated people for millenia and was now within reach.
On Monday we will hear a lot about the spaceship that took three astronauts to the moon. But I hope we hear too about the news anchor who took millions of people to the moon with them, and without leaving their living rooms.
His was the voice that guided America through triumphs and tragedies, a steady, clear voice in a turbullent and unpredictable age.
It was Cronkite who told Americans about the Cuban missile crisis, the assassinations of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Civil Rights struggle, Vietnam and the anti-war protests, Roe vs. Wade, Watergate, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Three Mile Island and the Iran hostage crisis. His calm but strong voice let us all know what was going on.
Cronkite's professionalism extended to every area of the news (although there were times, such as his coverage of the Kennedy assassination when glimpses of a man who was just an American like all of us came through.) But there was one day on which he felt it was important to speak out. It came following the Tet Offensive in the Vietnamese War, an event in which while Americans were able to beat back Viet Cong attacks at every turn, the enemy was able to prove that the war had not been won (despite statements to that effect by American planners) and that they could still launch attacks in virtually every area of South Vietnam. Walter Cronkite felt then that he had a duty and an obligation to use his podium to express his belief that the war was unwinnable. To be silent any longer and let more young Americans bleed their lives away once he realized that would not have been in his character.
That is not the one area of reporting where he will be most remembered though.
Monday will be the fortieth anniversary of that day when the Eagle soared over the airless surface of a barren and alien new world. Forty years ago Apollo 11 reached the moon and Neil Armstrong set his foot down on its dry, lifeless and dusty surface. Much has been said and written about it. But far from just another news story, reporting on America's space program was Walter Cronkite's favorite topic. It was his passion, and a passion which he shared with millions of Americans. There are those who claim that what interest in space we have originated with television shows like Star Trek or movies like Star Wars. Perhaps, but I don't believe it. No, it originated with a news anchor, someone who took the time and really felt how important it was to explain to us what it took to put a giant spaceship into space and to explore a place which had captivated people for millenia and was now within reach.
On Monday we will hear a lot about the spaceship that took three astronauts to the moon. But I hope we hear too about the news anchor who took millions of people to the moon with them, and without leaving their living rooms.
If your friends are conservatives then you won't need any enemies
Just in case you don't know how the conservative money machine works, the American Conservative Union got caught in the shakedown in a legislative dispute between FedEx and UPS.
The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”
The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO...
In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS. Keene did not return a message left on his cell phone.
The whole dispute is about a bill which would make it easier for the Teamsters union to unionize FedEx. UPS is already organized by the Teamsters. FedEx has resisted unionization but UPS and the Teamsters believe that organizing FedEx would help ensure uniform labor standards throughout the industry.
As a supporter of unions as a progressive force for workplace rights and equality (in fact I once helped start a union at a former workplace,) I back UPS in the dispute. I'm up front about that and certainly don't expect anything for my support. I support the legislation because I believe it's the right thing to do. One would think that principled conservatives if they really believed that unionization was a bad thing wouldn't have to ask for money to support FedEx in this case, but would do it just because that's what they believe in. Ah, but that assumes that conservatives have principles. And at least in the case of the American Conservative Union, it appears that they don't have any, at least any that can't be bought.
Oh, yeah. There apparently is one thing they still do stand for.
Maury Lane, FedEx’s director of corporate communications, said: “Clearly, the ACU shopped their beliefs and UPS bought.”
ACU's executive vice president, Dennis Whitfield, said that neither the group nor David Keene, the chairman, took any money from UPS.
Just two weeks earlier, ACU had offered its endorsement to FedEx, saying in a letter to the company: “We stand with FedEx in opposition to this legislation.”
But there was a catch — an expensive one. ACU asked FedEx to pay as much as $3.4 million for e-mail and other services for “an aggressive grass-roots campaign to stop the legislation in the Senate.”
Granted, it's hard to believe anything that the ACU says about this but if Mr. Whitfield's assertion is true, then they endorsed UPS's position on the legislation for a different reason-- solely that they were rebuffed by FedEx. In which case they do stand for something-- SPITE!
"You don't let us watch your back, then we stick the knife in it ourselves."
Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby would be proud.
The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”
The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO...
In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS. Keene did not return a message left on his cell phone.
The whole dispute is about a bill which would make it easier for the Teamsters union to unionize FedEx. UPS is already organized by the Teamsters. FedEx has resisted unionization but UPS and the Teamsters believe that organizing FedEx would help ensure uniform labor standards throughout the industry.
As a supporter of unions as a progressive force for workplace rights and equality (in fact I once helped start a union at a former workplace,) I back UPS in the dispute. I'm up front about that and certainly don't expect anything for my support. I support the legislation because I believe it's the right thing to do. One would think that principled conservatives if they really believed that unionization was a bad thing wouldn't have to ask for money to support FedEx in this case, but would do it just because that's what they believe in. Ah, but that assumes that conservatives have principles. And at least in the case of the American Conservative Union, it appears that they don't have any, at least any that can't be bought.
Oh, yeah. There apparently is one thing they still do stand for.
Maury Lane, FedEx’s director of corporate communications, said: “Clearly, the ACU shopped their beliefs and UPS bought.”
ACU's executive vice president, Dennis Whitfield, said that neither the group nor David Keene, the chairman, took any money from UPS.
Just two weeks earlier, ACU had offered its endorsement to FedEx, saying in a letter to the company: “We stand with FedEx in opposition to this legislation.”
But there was a catch — an expensive one. ACU asked FedEx to pay as much as $3.4 million for e-mail and other services for “an aggressive grass-roots campaign to stop the legislation in the Senate.”
Granted, it's hard to believe anything that the ACU says about this but if Mr. Whitfield's assertion is true, then they endorsed UPS's position on the legislation for a different reason-- solely that they were rebuffed by FedEx. In which case they do stand for something-- SPITE!
"You don't let us watch your back, then we stick the knife in it ourselves."
Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby would be proud.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
What Sotomayor SHOULD say: Why NOT use my experience to help with decisions?
Why shouldn't a judge on the United States Supreme Court use her personal knowlege as gained by life experience as one component of what goes into making decisions?
Conservatives claim to be 'strict constructionists,' regarding the Constitution and claim that judges should relate everything back to it (well, except for the fourth amendment, the fifth if accused of a drug crime and the sixth regarding Jose Padilla, and portions of the first, also not Article 4, Section 1 as relates to marriages performed in New England states.) They blithely preach the Constitutional gospel like it is the answer to all life's questions, even though the founding fathers themselves took pains to make it clear that it only served as a guideline. For example, conservatives love to remind you that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. There doesn't have to be, thanks to the ninth amendment which explicitly states that the fact that a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does NOT construe that there is no such right. It's up to judges then to enumerate what additional rights the ninth amendment refers to and more than 90 years ago they decided that privacy was one of those rights.
Obviously to conservatives though these apparent contradictions of their dogma with the Constitution are mere inconveniences. According to them, Ben Franklin and John Adams must have agreed (and agreed with their view) on medicinal marijuana and funding for English learner classes, it's in there if you look hard enough. And then see what you want to see.
Only problem is, if it was that easy the case wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court in the first place. If the Constitution clearly spelled it out then you wouldn't even need judges at all, just a bubble sheet with questions about the case on it and a computerized flowchart.
The cases that the SCOTUS even accepts have been appealed all the way up through the process precisely because there are often contradictory Constitutional provisions, clauses or amendment which can be construed as favorable to either side. In other cases there is simply no Constitutional precedent at all.
In these cases, why isn't it apropos for a judge to use all sources available to arrive at a decision, including her own experiences? The Constitution may not provide a clear enough answer to a problem that was not even conceived of two centuries ago, and in that case the judge has to have something to go on, be it her own judgements, international law or whatever else. So why make it a bad thing to use her best judgement?
Conservatives claim to be 'strict constructionists,' regarding the Constitution and claim that judges should relate everything back to it (well, except for the fourth amendment, the fifth if accused of a drug crime and the sixth regarding Jose Padilla, and portions of the first, also not Article 4, Section 1 as relates to marriages performed in New England states.) They blithely preach the Constitutional gospel like it is the answer to all life's questions, even though the founding fathers themselves took pains to make it clear that it only served as a guideline. For example, conservatives love to remind you that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. There doesn't have to be, thanks to the ninth amendment which explicitly states that the fact that a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does NOT construe that there is no such right. It's up to judges then to enumerate what additional rights the ninth amendment refers to and more than 90 years ago they decided that privacy was one of those rights.
Obviously to conservatives though these apparent contradictions of their dogma with the Constitution are mere inconveniences. According to them, Ben Franklin and John Adams must have agreed (and agreed with their view) on medicinal marijuana and funding for English learner classes, it's in there if you look hard enough. And then see what you want to see.
Only problem is, if it was that easy the case wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court in the first place. If the Constitution clearly spelled it out then you wouldn't even need judges at all, just a bubble sheet with questions about the case on it and a computerized flowchart.
The cases that the SCOTUS even accepts have been appealed all the way up through the process precisely because there are often contradictory Constitutional provisions, clauses or amendment which can be construed as favorable to either side. In other cases there is simply no Constitutional precedent at all.
In these cases, why isn't it apropos for a judge to use all sources available to arrive at a decision, including her own experiences? The Constitution may not provide a clear enough answer to a problem that was not even conceived of two centuries ago, and in that case the judge has to have something to go on, be it her own judgements, international law or whatever else. So why make it a bad thing to use her best judgement?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Based on how Palin is running her own state, it's a good thing she's quitting
Lost in all the discussion about how Sarah Palin's resignation will affect her future and her feud with a nineteen year old stud (how many 45 year old politicians get dragged into public spats with a teenager anyway), is the disaster she has been as Governor of the 'last frontier.' But today a story is out that is a prime example of how things have been going up there: Feds suspend Alaska's in-home health care programs.
ANCHORAGE — State programs intended to help disabled and elderly Alaskans with daily life — taking a bath, eating dinner, getting to the bathroom — are so poorly managed, the state cannot assure the health and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve, a new federal review found.
The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements.
No other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
My question is this: what exactly has she done competently since she's been in Government? Anything? And this is who some conservatives want for President? Man, if she ever becomes President there may even be some people who will miss Dubya, that's how bad she is.
ANCHORAGE — State programs intended to help disabled and elderly Alaskans with daily life — taking a bath, eating dinner, getting to the bathroom — are so poorly managed, the state cannot assure the health and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve, a new federal review found.
The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements.
No other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
My question is this: what exactly has she done competently since she's been in Government? Anything? And this is who some conservatives want for President? Man, if she ever becomes President there may even be some people who will miss Dubya, that's how bad she is.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Bills the lege wasted their time and your nickel on
Maybe the legislature didn't get a budget done that could pass muster, but it's nice to know that as the time crunch came, they were working hard on these kinds of bills:
Authorized seven new special license plates, including one for fans of the Arizona Cardinals (HB 2222; signed by Jan Brewer.)
Legalized sparklers and small fireworks in Arizona. There is a minimum age of sixteen to buy fireworks but no minimum age for their use, so I'm sure that people living in areas with a high fire risk will be thrilled to know that their neighbor's sixteen year old can now buy fireworks and give them to the five year olds to go keep themselves entertained (HB 2258.) AND, just to put the double whammy on this one they also passed SB 1421, which limits the amount by which local districts (including fire districts) can raise their levy to cover new expenses (oh, like let's see-- maybe the cost of putting out a bunch of new fire calls caused by children playing with fireworks.) The Governor has not yet signed or vetoed either HB 2258 or SB 1421 but what I hear is that she will probably sign them. I bet the few cents you might save on your fire district tax won't cover the amount your homeowners insurance will increase by.
Prevented cities, counties and other jurisdictions from removing political campaign signs along roads or otherwise in public right of ways (SB 1022 following a strike-all amendment.) Nice to know they're looking out for themselves. No word on whether the Governor will sign this one or not.
Religion in the schools. Allows students to use religion as a basis for their classwork, for example they can submit an essay saying that the earth is 6000 years old and receive full credit if they claim it is based on a religious viewpoint. Schools also can't ban students from wearing clothing with a religious symbol or message. (HB 2357; I'm taking bets on how long it takes before this backfires on conservatives and they get irrational when female Islamic students actually take advantage of this bill and start wearing a head scarf or a burqa to school.)
Recognizing July 25 as the national day of the cowboy (SR 1003).
Well, you can always cry in your beer. They did double the production limit for microbreweries (HB 2301; signed by jan..... brewer.)
Authorized seven new special license plates, including one for fans of the Arizona Cardinals (HB 2222; signed by Jan Brewer.)
Legalized sparklers and small fireworks in Arizona. There is a minimum age of sixteen to buy fireworks but no minimum age for their use, so I'm sure that people living in areas with a high fire risk will be thrilled to know that their neighbor's sixteen year old can now buy fireworks and give them to the five year olds to go keep themselves entertained (HB 2258.) AND, just to put the double whammy on this one they also passed SB 1421, which limits the amount by which local districts (including fire districts) can raise their levy to cover new expenses (oh, like let's see-- maybe the cost of putting out a bunch of new fire calls caused by children playing with fireworks.) The Governor has not yet signed or vetoed either HB 2258 or SB 1421 but what I hear is that she will probably sign them. I bet the few cents you might save on your fire district tax won't cover the amount your homeowners insurance will increase by.
Prevented cities, counties and other jurisdictions from removing political campaign signs along roads or otherwise in public right of ways (SB 1022 following a strike-all amendment.) Nice to know they're looking out for themselves. No word on whether the Governor will sign this one or not.
Religion in the schools. Allows students to use religion as a basis for their classwork, for example they can submit an essay saying that the earth is 6000 years old and receive full credit if they claim it is based on a religious viewpoint. Schools also can't ban students from wearing clothing with a religious symbol or message. (HB 2357; I'm taking bets on how long it takes before this backfires on conservatives and they get irrational when female Islamic students actually take advantage of this bill and start wearing a head scarf or a burqa to school.)
Recognizing July 25 as the national day of the cowboy (SR 1003).
Well, you can always cry in your beer. They did double the production limit for microbreweries (HB 2301; signed by jan..... brewer.)
Friday, July 10, 2009
Keith Olbermann recognizes my state senator as the 'worst person in the world.'
I hadn't posted on this story, largely because so many other Arizona blogs have done a very good job of coverage, but now that it's gone national, I'd mention that in Keith Olbermann's countdown on July 8 he names our own state Senator from here in Navajo County, Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-ignoramus) as the 'worst person in the world.'
watch Olbermann naming Allen.
The original remark by Allen is here:
The whole issue started when Senator Allen was speaking on the senate floor in favor of uranium mining. She was against environmental restrictions and she said that because the earth has been here 6,000 years, long before environmental laws but we haven't damaged it yet by mining uranium there was no need to be concerned about environmental restrictions. After she made the 6,000 year comment someone (apparently someone who realized what she'd just said) tried to cut her off. Instead they only interrupted her train of thought so she started again with repeating the six thousand year thing.
What is most amazing is the way she said it. When for example a Mike Huckabee or a Sarah Palin say something like that they emphasize it, which to me makes it clear that they know that what they are saying isn't true and they are only chucking that in there to appeal to the fundamentalist crowd. But the way senator Allen says it makes it pretty plain that she believes that as a matter of course it simply is; sort of like if you or I began a sentence with, "The sun rises..."
Even leaving the 6,000 years aside, the fact that she also believes that there was no environmental damage before there were environmental laws and that uranium mining doesn't hurt the environment is also breathtaking in the level of ignorance that it displays. There is a good reason why they want to mine uranium now in the area around the Vermillion cliffs and the Grand Canyon. It's because in the place where they used to mine it, on the Navajo reservation, Navajo Nation president Joe Shirley has banned any more uranium mining. Maybe she should visit the reservation or have lunch with president Shirley (who four years ago passed up a lot of government and private money when he refused to allow uranium mining to begin again on the reservation.) There are still dangerously radioactive (as well as chemically hazardous) tailings piles on the reservation from the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's when uranium was mined there. That's besides the thousands of Navajos who worked in the mines or lived near them who have become sick and died over the decades from diseases, especially cancers very probably caused by exposure to uranium dust. Joe Shirley is a Leader (yes, that's with a capital 'L') who puts the welfare of his people first, something that is unfortunately a rare commodity in our state.
Our district, legislative district 5, abuts but does not extend onto the reservation. In fact, Senator Allen voted for the June 4 budget (the package which was transmitted to the Governor just in time for her veto on June 30, which is why we now have the special session.) The budget cut a great deal from rural hospitals and other institutions, so much so that our Republican state representative, Bill Konopnicki crossed party lines to vote against it. I pointed this out in a letter to the Holbrook Tribune. Senator Allen (who I had emailed several times before to express my opinion on issues) emailed me back saying she was annoyed at the letter. She disputed portions of it, but I know very well what was in that budget and the truth is she voted to gut healthcare and schools in her own district, and apparently doesn't know that she did vote for that.
Senator Allen was not originally elected to the position, but rather she was appointed by our county commission following the death of the incumbent (thanks, guys.) I will give my own commissioner, J.R. DeSpain, credit for opposing her, but he lost a 4-1 vote. It is true that state law required that they appoint a Republican to the position (since Jake Flake, the guy who died was a Republican) but you would think they would at least look for a Republican who knows the earth was here already before civilization began. There are some, you know. Heck Konopnicki was known to be interested in the position and as the state representative and a member of the same party he would have been the logical choice to run.
Maybe it is clear that senator Allen went to schools here in Arizona. After decades of Republican control of the legislature (even in the rare terms when there is a Democratic Governor) and starving the schools, it seems that the scariest part of having our kids taught in an underfunded educational system is that one day they grow up and take what they've learned in school to the legislature.
watch Olbermann naming Allen.
The original remark by Allen is here:
The whole issue started when Senator Allen was speaking on the senate floor in favor of uranium mining. She was against environmental restrictions and she said that because the earth has been here 6,000 years, long before environmental laws but we haven't damaged it yet by mining uranium there was no need to be concerned about environmental restrictions. After she made the 6,000 year comment someone (apparently someone who realized what she'd just said) tried to cut her off. Instead they only interrupted her train of thought so she started again with repeating the six thousand year thing.
What is most amazing is the way she said it. When for example a Mike Huckabee or a Sarah Palin say something like that they emphasize it, which to me makes it clear that they know that what they are saying isn't true and they are only chucking that in there to appeal to the fundamentalist crowd. But the way senator Allen says it makes it pretty plain that she believes that as a matter of course it simply is; sort of like if you or I began a sentence with, "The sun rises..."
Even leaving the 6,000 years aside, the fact that she also believes that there was no environmental damage before there were environmental laws and that uranium mining doesn't hurt the environment is also breathtaking in the level of ignorance that it displays. There is a good reason why they want to mine uranium now in the area around the Vermillion cliffs and the Grand Canyon. It's because in the place where they used to mine it, on the Navajo reservation, Navajo Nation president Joe Shirley has banned any more uranium mining. Maybe she should visit the reservation or have lunch with president Shirley (who four years ago passed up a lot of government and private money when he refused to allow uranium mining to begin again on the reservation.) There are still dangerously radioactive (as well as chemically hazardous) tailings piles on the reservation from the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's when uranium was mined there. That's besides the thousands of Navajos who worked in the mines or lived near them who have become sick and died over the decades from diseases, especially cancers very probably caused by exposure to uranium dust. Joe Shirley is a Leader (yes, that's with a capital 'L') who puts the welfare of his people first, something that is unfortunately a rare commodity in our state.
Our district, legislative district 5, abuts but does not extend onto the reservation. In fact, Senator Allen voted for the June 4 budget (the package which was transmitted to the Governor just in time for her veto on June 30, which is why we now have the special session.) The budget cut a great deal from rural hospitals and other institutions, so much so that our Republican state representative, Bill Konopnicki crossed party lines to vote against it. I pointed this out in a letter to the Holbrook Tribune. Senator Allen (who I had emailed several times before to express my opinion on issues) emailed me back saying she was annoyed at the letter. She disputed portions of it, but I know very well what was in that budget and the truth is she voted to gut healthcare and schools in her own district, and apparently doesn't know that she did vote for that.
Senator Allen was not originally elected to the position, but rather she was appointed by our county commission following the death of the incumbent (thanks, guys.) I will give my own commissioner, J.R. DeSpain, credit for opposing her, but he lost a 4-1 vote. It is true that state law required that they appoint a Republican to the position (since Jake Flake, the guy who died was a Republican) but you would think they would at least look for a Republican who knows the earth was here already before civilization began. There are some, you know. Heck Konopnicki was known to be interested in the position and as the state representative and a member of the same party he would have been the logical choice to run.
Maybe it is clear that senator Allen went to schools here in Arizona. After decades of Republican control of the legislature (even in the rare terms when there is a Democratic Governor) and starving the schools, it seems that the scariest part of having our kids taught in an underfunded educational system is that one day they grow up and take what they've learned in school to the legislature.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Stimulus slow to create jobs because of changes made by GOP Senators(!)
Remember back when Democrats had to just about sell out the barn to get three Republican stimulus votes?
The bill was trimmed substantially, from over $900 billion to its final pricetag of $787 billion.
Still a lot of money but even then a lot of economists predicted it would not be enough.
Well, if it isn't then the problem is not even so much the amount of the money as the way what was left was structured. The stated purpose of the bill was to create jobs but what was left does not do that.
Start with the fact that 42% of the stimulus is in the form of tax cuts. At best, tax cuts might be spent to create jobs but in the present environment the chances are than anyone who can afford to save their tax cut money is probably doing exactly that; spending it on job creation is just too risky right now. It would have been far better for the Government to spend the money up front than handing it out in tax cuts.
Most of the rest of it is going to state and local governments which have been using it to shore up their budget holes. That might prevent more layoffs of state workers but again, this isn't really creating a lot of jobs.
What is missing is the direct spending by the Government to hire new workers. Remember all the 'shovel ready projects?' For example, in order to get her support Senator Susan Collins of Maine made them take out every dime that had been in the stimulus for school construction. It's not like there isn't a need for school construction, there is. And right now there are plenty of Americans ready to do it. But in order to garner the votes of a handful of Republicans the portions of the bill most directly related to job creation were removed.
Now, I understand that this is the way Govenrment works (even more so given that at the time the administration had to have at least two Republican Senators or they couldn't have passed any kind of a bill.) However for Republicans to complain about the slow pace of job creation when it was Republicans who in effect structured it that way is at best hypocrisy.
The bill was trimmed substantially, from over $900 billion to its final pricetag of $787 billion.
Still a lot of money but even then a lot of economists predicted it would not be enough.
Well, if it isn't then the problem is not even so much the amount of the money as the way what was left was structured. The stated purpose of the bill was to create jobs but what was left does not do that.
Start with the fact that 42% of the stimulus is in the form of tax cuts. At best, tax cuts might be spent to create jobs but in the present environment the chances are than anyone who can afford to save their tax cut money is probably doing exactly that; spending it on job creation is just too risky right now. It would have been far better for the Government to spend the money up front than handing it out in tax cuts.
Most of the rest of it is going to state and local governments which have been using it to shore up their budget holes. That might prevent more layoffs of state workers but again, this isn't really creating a lot of jobs.
What is missing is the direct spending by the Government to hire new workers. Remember all the 'shovel ready projects?' For example, in order to get her support Senator Susan Collins of Maine made them take out every dime that had been in the stimulus for school construction. It's not like there isn't a need for school construction, there is. And right now there are plenty of Americans ready to do it. But in order to garner the votes of a handful of Republicans the portions of the bill most directly related to job creation were removed.
Now, I understand that this is the way Govenrment works (even more so given that at the time the administration had to have at least two Republican Senators or they couldn't have passed any kind of a bill.) However for Republicans to complain about the slow pace of job creation when it was Republicans who in effect structured it that way is at best hypocrisy.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Right after the September 11 terrorist attacks, news outlets reported that it was the first attack on the continental United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) since the War of 1812. They said it was a new phenomenon: a foreign leader who hid in another country from which he had effectively declared war on the United States. When they said that they showed their ignorance of American history, and in matters of foreign policy ignorance of history is a very dangerous thing. There is a saying that those who do not study and learn the lessons of history will repeat it, meaning that they will not recognize a situation they are confronted with and will repeat the mistakes that were made by their forbears. And so it seems to be today, in terms of our war in Afghanistan and our pursuit of Osama bin Laden.
Let's go back to March 9, 1916. Foreign invaders attacked the United States. They first attacked the 13th Cavalry regiment of the United States Army, seizing over 100 horses and mules, then stormed into the town of Columbus, New Mexico, burning much of the town and killing two dozen people (both soldiers and civilians,) some of whom were shot in the head, execution-style.
The attackers came from Mexico and were led by Francisco "Pancho" Villa, already a notorious revolutionary. Villa, despite being pursued by U.S. troops still found time to cross the border again and attack the town of Glen Springs, Texas on May 15 of that year, killing one more American.
Because there were then still Mexicans alive who remembered the Mexican War with the United States (1845-1848) Villa's raid was cheered across Mexico.
This was the first attack by a foreign attacker upon United States territory since the War of 1812 and it prompted an immediate angry reaction from the United States. General "Black Jack" Pershing led 10,000 American troops into Mexico in pursuit of Villa. Their stated goal was to pursue Villa 'to the ends of the earth' if necessary, and either kill him or bring him back to face a court of justice. They had some success with disrupting and damaging Villa's organization (in fact, a young Lieutenant named George S. Patton is credited with killing Julio Cárdenas, one of Villa's top commanders.)
However, Pershing's expedition marched 2,000 miles through Mexico and while they did engage Villistas (and occasionally other Mexican revolutionaries) they never caught up with the man himself. Pershing later admitted to having been "outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." In short, the Pershing expedition was a failure that did more to strengthen Villa by raising his popularity than it did to hurt his military capability.
The expedition eventually ended in January, 1917. The United States was well aware that Villa was still lurking someplace in Mexico and border security was beefed up. Pershing and his troops were soon after on a ship to Europe to fight the Kaiser's army (with more success than they had against Villa, I might add.)
Villa had been celebrated as a hero across all Mexico at the time, as Mexicans were more than happy to see him giving the proverbial finger to the United States. However when Pershing left, Villa was back to just being Villa. And Villa had left a wide trail of bodies all over Mexico as well and made a lot of enemies. So it is not so surprising that a few years later, on July 20, 1923, someone ambushed Villa while he was driving his car and riddled him with bullets. The Federales, Mexican police, claim it was them but many sources suggest they just showed up to take pictures. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Let's fast forward to the present. On September 11, 2001, we saw the second organized foreign attack on U.S. territory since Villa and the first since World War II.
Americans were outraged and the country rallied together in support of a war in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban rulers of the country and their al-Qaeda allies, and either kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
Although I almost never support war, believing it should be a last resort, I felt then that the Afghan war was necessary.
I also felt (like many others, and expressed very directly by Al Gore in the summer of 2002) that we should finish the job instead of putting it on the back burner to go fight another war. However, whatever one may think of Iraq what is done is done and we are now back fighting in Afghanistan.
Much has changed however. Far from being on the offensive, we have become primarily tied down to defending the cities and a few military bases. Our 'support' rests with the popularity of a government that few people outside the capital support or even acknowlege. International borders (especially that between Afghanistan and Pakistan) are either ignored by the enemy or used as a 'terrain feature' by them to their advantage. Recently we have been looking for another way to send supplies to Afghanistan because we can't even guarantee our own supply convoys in terrain that is so mountainous, craggy and rocky that the enemy can literally advance to within a few yards undetected. And, they blend into the civilian population giving our troops the unpalatable choice between sitting and waiting for them to attack us before we can respond or shooting at people who very well may in fact be civilians. In short, we have become the Soviet Union. Ironically, Russia recently answered our call for another land-based supply route and negotiated with other former Soviet republics to allow us to use the same supply routes in from the north that they used to use. One wonders whether this gesture from Putin and Medvedev was made from good will or with a sly grin, because they know very well how vulnerable those other routes are, and can't wait to see us fighting the same war they fought and lost.
Into this situation we have dumped thousands more troops. I wish them success, but I am not optimistic that we will achieve it. There was indeed a window to finish off the Taliban in Afghanistan (and maybe get bin Laden) but that window has long since been closed. A nascent antiwar movement, rethinkafghanistan.com has recognized this too and is calling on American soldiers to be withdrawn from Afghanistan if the present offensive in Helmand does not achieve its objectives and help stabilize the country.
But if we leave won't bin Laden again be a threat to attack the United States?
Yes, he will. But staying there doesn't guarantee that he won't. Further even if we leave there is no reason we can't continue to hunt for him via collection of intelligence, covert operations and the use of unmanned aircraft.
At this point, I would suggest that as long as we stay we are probably helping him hide. He is still fairly popular among the Pashtun, the tribe that is most strongly identified with the Taliban, and among some other Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Being pursued by the United States gives him the equivalent of a 'get out of jail free' card with many of the locals who don't want to make trouble for the man who is still throwing a finger at America. But if we leave he will have the same problem that Villa did-- he's left a wide trail of bodies (including Afghan, Pakistani and muslim bodies) that he will have to answer for, and sooner or later one of his local enemies will catch up to him, just as they did to Pancho Villa.
Let's go back to March 9, 1916. Foreign invaders attacked the United States. They first attacked the 13th Cavalry regiment of the United States Army, seizing over 100 horses and mules, then stormed into the town of Columbus, New Mexico, burning much of the town and killing two dozen people (both soldiers and civilians,) some of whom were shot in the head, execution-style.
The attackers came from Mexico and were led by Francisco "Pancho" Villa, already a notorious revolutionary. Villa, despite being pursued by U.S. troops still found time to cross the border again and attack the town of Glen Springs, Texas on May 15 of that year, killing one more American.
Because there were then still Mexicans alive who remembered the Mexican War with the United States (1845-1848) Villa's raid was cheered across Mexico.
This was the first attack by a foreign attacker upon United States territory since the War of 1812 and it prompted an immediate angry reaction from the United States. General "Black Jack" Pershing led 10,000 American troops into Mexico in pursuit of Villa. Their stated goal was to pursue Villa 'to the ends of the earth' if necessary, and either kill him or bring him back to face a court of justice. They had some success with disrupting and damaging Villa's organization (in fact, a young Lieutenant named George S. Patton is credited with killing Julio Cárdenas, one of Villa's top commanders.)
However, Pershing's expedition marched 2,000 miles through Mexico and while they did engage Villistas (and occasionally other Mexican revolutionaries) they never caught up with the man himself. Pershing later admitted to having been "outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." In short, the Pershing expedition was a failure that did more to strengthen Villa by raising his popularity than it did to hurt his military capability.
The expedition eventually ended in January, 1917. The United States was well aware that Villa was still lurking someplace in Mexico and border security was beefed up. Pershing and his troops were soon after on a ship to Europe to fight the Kaiser's army (with more success than they had against Villa, I might add.)
Villa had been celebrated as a hero across all Mexico at the time, as Mexicans were more than happy to see him giving the proverbial finger to the United States. However when Pershing left, Villa was back to just being Villa. And Villa had left a wide trail of bodies all over Mexico as well and made a lot of enemies. So it is not so surprising that a few years later, on July 20, 1923, someone ambushed Villa while he was driving his car and riddled him with bullets. The Federales, Mexican police, claim it was them but many sources suggest they just showed up to take pictures. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Let's fast forward to the present. On September 11, 2001, we saw the second organized foreign attack on U.S. territory since Villa and the first since World War II.
Americans were outraged and the country rallied together in support of a war in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban rulers of the country and their al-Qaeda allies, and either kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
Although I almost never support war, believing it should be a last resort, I felt then that the Afghan war was necessary.
I also felt (like many others, and expressed very directly by Al Gore in the summer of 2002) that we should finish the job instead of putting it on the back burner to go fight another war. However, whatever one may think of Iraq what is done is done and we are now back fighting in Afghanistan.
Much has changed however. Far from being on the offensive, we have become primarily tied down to defending the cities and a few military bases. Our 'support' rests with the popularity of a government that few people outside the capital support or even acknowlege. International borders (especially that between Afghanistan and Pakistan) are either ignored by the enemy or used as a 'terrain feature' by them to their advantage. Recently we have been looking for another way to send supplies to Afghanistan because we can't even guarantee our own supply convoys in terrain that is so mountainous, craggy and rocky that the enemy can literally advance to within a few yards undetected. And, they blend into the civilian population giving our troops the unpalatable choice between sitting and waiting for them to attack us before we can respond or shooting at people who very well may in fact be civilians. In short, we have become the Soviet Union. Ironically, Russia recently answered our call for another land-based supply route and negotiated with other former Soviet republics to allow us to use the same supply routes in from the north that they used to use. One wonders whether this gesture from Putin and Medvedev was made from good will or with a sly grin, because they know very well how vulnerable those other routes are, and can't wait to see us fighting the same war they fought and lost.
Into this situation we have dumped thousands more troops. I wish them success, but I am not optimistic that we will achieve it. There was indeed a window to finish off the Taliban in Afghanistan (and maybe get bin Laden) but that window has long since been closed. A nascent antiwar movement, rethinkafghanistan.com has recognized this too and is calling on American soldiers to be withdrawn from Afghanistan if the present offensive in Helmand does not achieve its objectives and help stabilize the country.
But if we leave won't bin Laden again be a threat to attack the United States?
Yes, he will. But staying there doesn't guarantee that he won't. Further even if we leave there is no reason we can't continue to hunt for him via collection of intelligence, covert operations and the use of unmanned aircraft.
At this point, I would suggest that as long as we stay we are probably helping him hide. He is still fairly popular among the Pashtun, the tribe that is most strongly identified with the Taliban, and among some other Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Being pursued by the United States gives him the equivalent of a 'get out of jail free' card with many of the locals who don't want to make trouble for the man who is still throwing a finger at America. But if we leave he will have the same problem that Villa did-- he's left a wide trail of bodies (including Afghan, Pakistani and muslim bodies) that he will have to answer for, and sooner or later one of his local enemies will catch up to him, just as they did to Pancho Villa.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
WaPo was wrong to cancel fundraiser
On this 233rd birthday of America, I'm going to come clean about something that's been bothering me about freedom of the press.
It has to do with the recent brouhaha about the Washington Post's plan to have the equivalent of a political fundraiser, in which big wigs and fat cats could pay up to $250,000 per plate to mix with reporters, editors, owners and other important people who influence what goes into one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers.
No, I'm not angry because they thought of the idea as a way to raise some money.
No, I'm not angry because presumably it would give rich people an opportunity the poor won't get.
No, I'm not angry at the idea of wealthy contributors trying to buy influence to help get their story into (or for that matter keep their story out of) the paper.
I'm angry because they canceled the event.
Somebody at the Post thought of a unique way to raise money from private sources. And given that the Post lost $20 million last quarter, clearly they do need to do something.
The fear that the contributors at the event would cause the news to be biased is absurd on the face of it. If that were true then why would a newspaper even accept advertising? As Lyndon Johnson, the most worldly of politicians used to love saying about the Senate, "you have to be able to take their money, eat at their table, drink their wine, screw their women and vote against the bastards anyway or else you don't belong here." News professionals can do their job just as well as politicians can (better, I hope) and should be willing to cover a story no matter who is featured-- or they should go find a day job doing something else and write a blog at night. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh, the king of the radio blowhards, recently was able to lambaste the government bailout that saved General Motors even while acknowleging that GM has been a long time sponsor of his show. In canceling the event, is the Post suggesting that they aren't sure they can operate with even as much journalistic integrity as Rush Limbaugh!? Heck, I gave 35 bucks to national public radio last year (which was all I could afford.) Does that mean I should expect that if I'm ever in the news NPR will give me favorable coverage? No, and if I did I'd be delusional. True that $250,000 is a lot more than $35, but the same principle applies.
Besides, if a story is worth telling it will get out there (especially today in the face of all manner of alternative media crowding the airwaves, the internet and even streaming around the world through outer space.) The days when a newspaper could bury a story are gone. Sooner or later it will get out and the only thing the newspaper will bury is its own opportunity for a scoop.
OK, so what if it's not actual influence peddling they were worried about but the appearance of influence peddling?
The critics of papers like the Post (and they are legion) claim that they are losing money because people don't read them as much anymore because the news is biased. And they jumped all over the Post for this story, suggesting that now the bias was up for auction.
If only that were the reason people don't read the paper. Then presumably the paper could just hire a conservative editor and the subscriptions would start rolling in. But newspapers all over the country are facing similar tough economic circumstances. And it's because the demographic of print readers-- mostly older, less web savvy, is declining in numbers. I know this personally-- I moonlight with a delivery route for the Arizona Republic and just since I took over the route in 2007 the number of subscribers on it has declined by probably 25%. The recession has something to do with it, but even when the recession is over expect that newspapers will continue to struggle. Just over a year ago (before the recession really got going) my own 'hometown' paper, the Winslow Mail, a paper so old that its early editions were full of pioneers, cattle rustlers and gunfighters, shut down.
To be sure, I'm not suggesting that newspapers aren't biased. Nothing of the kind. And it's not like they weren't biased in the days of the founding fathers either-- I mean (since I'm writing this post on July 4), can you imagine the Boston Gazette in the days leading up to the Revolution including an editorial written by the British Governor extolling the virtues of King George just to keep things 'balanced?' If anything, newspapers today are far more even handed in giving voice to divergent views than they have been historically, either 233 years ago or even fifty years ago. Look up the term, 'yellow journalism' if you think that media bias is somehow a bigger dragon today than it has been in the past. Quite the opposite, in fact.
A free press is not the same thing as a fair press, and the founding fathers knew that. Instead of pushing for a balanced through the Constitution or through legislation, they figured out that if the press was biased then people who did not share that mindset would challenge it with a different point of view. The only difference today is that instead of merely a different point of view, it is likely to be a different format or technology-- so that conservative talk radio challenged liberal television news, and then the mostly liberal blogosphere challenged talk radio, but is now being challenged itself by twitter-- a medium that conservatives love. What we can see from these examples is that a free press, when left alone, evolves into a fair press.
So to those who argue that the Post is biased I'd answer, "what if it is?" Without saying it is or it is not, I'd answer they have the right to be biased if they want to, and alleged bias is not why they are losing readers. So what about the appearance that people who can afford a quarter million dollar lunch ticket can now get access to reporters and editors and so influence the way that certain facts are presented in a particular story (or maybe even kill the story)?
The idea that the rich and powerful will have undue access to writers and staff because of this is also silly. Let's be honest-- if a billionaire (someone who can afford to spring for a quarter million for lunch) who is a mover and shaker in a community walks into the office of most major dailies and says (s)he wants to talk to a reporter my hunch is that it will happen a lot quicker than if you or I walk in and make the same request. The access is already there. Why not charge for it?
In this extremely challenging environment, someone came up with an idea that is increasingly being used in other areas where funding is tight: corporate sponsorship. The City College of San Francisco is looking at letting individuals and corporations sponsor a class. The Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA is removing their team name from their jerseys and will replace it with a corporate sponsorship. Why can't a newspaper do this? Aren't their critics on the right always suggesting that private funds are better than government ones?
And that brings us to the real reason why I wish they had gone ahead with their fundraiser. If the Post and other newspapers don't come up with innovative ideas soon then you will see one of two things happen. They might go bankrupt (leaving 'news' to radio and cable television talking heads and bloggers like me-- sorry, but we don't qualify as 'news.') Or, they might get a 'sponsorship' (a.k.a. bailout) from the one entity which it is absolutely essential that newspapers remain out from under its influence-- the government.
So, shame on the Post. Shame for not being willing to stand up and defend their innovation and then for not carrying it through as a money earning idea. They've already gotten lots of bad press out of it just for their intent to hold the event-- how much more could they get if they actually do hold it (and most of that would come from implacable enemies anyway.)
They should re-schedule the event right away and this time go through with it.
It has to do with the recent brouhaha about the Washington Post's plan to have the equivalent of a political fundraiser, in which big wigs and fat cats could pay up to $250,000 per plate to mix with reporters, editors, owners and other important people who influence what goes into one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers.
No, I'm not angry because they thought of the idea as a way to raise some money.
No, I'm not angry because presumably it would give rich people an opportunity the poor won't get.
No, I'm not angry at the idea of wealthy contributors trying to buy influence to help get their story into (or for that matter keep their story out of) the paper.
I'm angry because they canceled the event.
Somebody at the Post thought of a unique way to raise money from private sources. And given that the Post lost $20 million last quarter, clearly they do need to do something.
The fear that the contributors at the event would cause the news to be biased is absurd on the face of it. If that were true then why would a newspaper even accept advertising? As Lyndon Johnson, the most worldly of politicians used to love saying about the Senate, "you have to be able to take their money, eat at their table, drink their wine, screw their women and vote against the bastards anyway or else you don't belong here." News professionals can do their job just as well as politicians can (better, I hope) and should be willing to cover a story no matter who is featured-- or they should go find a day job doing something else and write a blog at night. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh, the king of the radio blowhards, recently was able to lambaste the government bailout that saved General Motors even while acknowleging that GM has been a long time sponsor of his show. In canceling the event, is the Post suggesting that they aren't sure they can operate with even as much journalistic integrity as Rush Limbaugh!? Heck, I gave 35 bucks to national public radio last year (which was all I could afford.) Does that mean I should expect that if I'm ever in the news NPR will give me favorable coverage? No, and if I did I'd be delusional. True that $250,000 is a lot more than $35, but the same principle applies.
Besides, if a story is worth telling it will get out there (especially today in the face of all manner of alternative media crowding the airwaves, the internet and even streaming around the world through outer space.) The days when a newspaper could bury a story are gone. Sooner or later it will get out and the only thing the newspaper will bury is its own opportunity for a scoop.
OK, so what if it's not actual influence peddling they were worried about but the appearance of influence peddling?
The critics of papers like the Post (and they are legion) claim that they are losing money because people don't read them as much anymore because the news is biased. And they jumped all over the Post for this story, suggesting that now the bias was up for auction.
If only that were the reason people don't read the paper. Then presumably the paper could just hire a conservative editor and the subscriptions would start rolling in. But newspapers all over the country are facing similar tough economic circumstances. And it's because the demographic of print readers-- mostly older, less web savvy, is declining in numbers. I know this personally-- I moonlight with a delivery route for the Arizona Republic and just since I took over the route in 2007 the number of subscribers on it has declined by probably 25%. The recession has something to do with it, but even when the recession is over expect that newspapers will continue to struggle. Just over a year ago (before the recession really got going) my own 'hometown' paper, the Winslow Mail, a paper so old that its early editions were full of pioneers, cattle rustlers and gunfighters, shut down.
To be sure, I'm not suggesting that newspapers aren't biased. Nothing of the kind. And it's not like they weren't biased in the days of the founding fathers either-- I mean (since I'm writing this post on July 4), can you imagine the Boston Gazette in the days leading up to the Revolution including an editorial written by the British Governor extolling the virtues of King George just to keep things 'balanced?' If anything, newspapers today are far more even handed in giving voice to divergent views than they have been historically, either 233 years ago or even fifty years ago. Look up the term, 'yellow journalism' if you think that media bias is somehow a bigger dragon today than it has been in the past. Quite the opposite, in fact.
A free press is not the same thing as a fair press, and the founding fathers knew that. Instead of pushing for a balanced through the Constitution or through legislation, they figured out that if the press was biased then people who did not share that mindset would challenge it with a different point of view. The only difference today is that instead of merely a different point of view, it is likely to be a different format or technology-- so that conservative talk radio challenged liberal television news, and then the mostly liberal blogosphere challenged talk radio, but is now being challenged itself by twitter-- a medium that conservatives love. What we can see from these examples is that a free press, when left alone, evolves into a fair press.
So to those who argue that the Post is biased I'd answer, "what if it is?" Without saying it is or it is not, I'd answer they have the right to be biased if they want to, and alleged bias is not why they are losing readers. So what about the appearance that people who can afford a quarter million dollar lunch ticket can now get access to reporters and editors and so influence the way that certain facts are presented in a particular story (or maybe even kill the story)?
The idea that the rich and powerful will have undue access to writers and staff because of this is also silly. Let's be honest-- if a billionaire (someone who can afford to spring for a quarter million for lunch) who is a mover and shaker in a community walks into the office of most major dailies and says (s)he wants to talk to a reporter my hunch is that it will happen a lot quicker than if you or I walk in and make the same request. The access is already there. Why not charge for it?
In this extremely challenging environment, someone came up with an idea that is increasingly being used in other areas where funding is tight: corporate sponsorship. The City College of San Francisco is looking at letting individuals and corporations sponsor a class. The Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA is removing their team name from their jerseys and will replace it with a corporate sponsorship. Why can't a newspaper do this? Aren't their critics on the right always suggesting that private funds are better than government ones?
And that brings us to the real reason why I wish they had gone ahead with their fundraiser. If the Post and other newspapers don't come up with innovative ideas soon then you will see one of two things happen. They might go bankrupt (leaving 'news' to radio and cable television talking heads and bloggers like me-- sorry, but we don't qualify as 'news.') Or, they might get a 'sponsorship' (a.k.a. bailout) from the one entity which it is absolutely essential that newspapers remain out from under its influence-- the government.
So, shame on the Post. Shame for not being willing to stand up and defend their innovation and then for not carrying it through as a money earning idea. They've already gotten lots of bad press out of it just for their intent to hold the event-- how much more could they get if they actually do hold it (and most of that would come from implacable enemies anyway.)
They should re-schedule the event right away and this time go through with it.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Chicken crosses road; state police fail to solve mystery.
Well, we still don't know WHY the chicken crossed the road, but we do know which road (highway 17 north of Phoenix) and what the result was (a major traffic backup.)
Rooster on road backs up I-17.
Drivers found themselves contending with more than holiday traffic Friday when a chicken was found crossing the road.
Northbound Interstate 17 remains backed up north of Loop 101 after a rooster tried to cross the freeway about 11 a.m. at Arizona 74
"It's just a busy holiday - and of course the rooster," said Officer Robert Bailey, a DPS spokesman. "The rooster only compounded matters."
An officer removed the uninjured bird within 40 minutes, but Bailey expects the heavy Fourth of July traffic to remain slow-and-go through late this evening.
Unfortunately the article goes on to say that the officer took the bird to New River and released it, without first asking the chicken WHY it crossed the road!
This whole matter of motivation is the key question that should have been asked here. People have been asking why the chicken crosses the road since, well, there were roads and chickens crossed them.
With modern interrogation techniques, including some developed for use in cases of rendition, the chicken could have been made to confess why it crossed the road. Not just physical pain, but the infliction of terror. Just imagine a state patrol officer walking into the room where the chicken was being asked, "Just one more time, WHY?" dressed up as Colonel Sanders, holding a knife and a fork. THEN you'd hear some squawking, yes, you would.
Yes, the Obama administration has banned some of these techniques (so no terrorist ever has to worry about Colonel Sanders conducting the inquiry) and for that I am glad. But even with kinder, gentler interrogation techniques ('Do you want a cigar?') some effort should have been made to solve the mystery of why the chicken crossed the road before the rooster was let go, so that he can come back and cross another road someplace.
Rooster on road backs up I-17.
Drivers found themselves contending with more than holiday traffic Friday when a chicken was found crossing the road.
Northbound Interstate 17 remains backed up north of Loop 101 after a rooster tried to cross the freeway about 11 a.m. at Arizona 74
"It's just a busy holiday - and of course the rooster," said Officer Robert Bailey, a DPS spokesman. "The rooster only compounded matters."
An officer removed the uninjured bird within 40 minutes, but Bailey expects the heavy Fourth of July traffic to remain slow-and-go through late this evening.
Unfortunately the article goes on to say that the officer took the bird to New River and released it, without first asking the chicken WHY it crossed the road!
This whole matter of motivation is the key question that should have been asked here. People have been asking why the chicken crosses the road since, well, there were roads and chickens crossed them.
With modern interrogation techniques, including some developed for use in cases of rendition, the chicken could have been made to confess why it crossed the road. Not just physical pain, but the infliction of terror. Just imagine a state patrol officer walking into the room where the chicken was being asked, "Just one more time, WHY?" dressed up as Colonel Sanders, holding a knife and a fork. THEN you'd hear some squawking, yes, you would.
Yes, the Obama administration has banned some of these techniques (so no terrorist ever has to worry about Colonel Sanders conducting the inquiry) and for that I am glad. But even with kinder, gentler interrogation techniques ('Do you want a cigar?') some effort should have been made to solve the mystery of why the chicken crossed the road before the rooster was let go, so that he can come back and cross another road someplace.
Sarah Palin: I QUIT.
A GOP Presidential contender for 2012 hadn't melted down yet this week, so I figure since it's Friday, there's still time. And sure enough--
I'm reading that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, apparently upset about a Vanity Fair article out this week that quoted anonymous former McCain staffers who said that she was difficult to work with, has decided to quit.
No, not in the sense of 'won't run for re-election.' More in the sense of 'I quit.' Now.
In a stunning move, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's 2008 vice presidential running mate, announced today that she'll resign later in the month and won't seek a second term next year.
Palin, a possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate, didn't answer any questions today and remains mum about her future intentions.
McCain, an Arizona Republican, made Palin a household name nearly a year ago when he picked her to join his ticket. On the national scene, Palin is one of those political figures who inspires passion in supporters and detractors alike. This week, Vanity Fair published a lengthy critical piece on Palin that allowed anonymous former McCain-Palin campaign officials to bash her.
Which, in my opinion, only proves that those who were concerned that she was too flaky and erratic to be President are right. Far from 'balancing' the ticket, the McCain-Palin ticket was erratic and inconsistent paired with erratic and inconsistent.
According to University of Virginia Political Science guru Larry Sabato, "Bizarro World: Sarah Palin just committed national political suicide by resigning as Governor of Alaska."
He's right about that. And every week another potential 2012 Republican Presidential candidate commits Hari-kiri.
Two weeks ago, it was John Ensign, who was in Iowa testing Presidential waters even as his fate was being sealed. One week ago it was South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Now it is Palin.
This benefits President Obama in two ways. First of course, potential 2012 foes are dropping like flies, but second this is now the third weekend when the GOP would prefer to talk about their opposition to health care, climate change legislation or Sonia Sotomayor but they will be competing in getting their message out with the weekly Republican meltdown story. In fact, the only Republican who is probably counting this as good luck is Mark Sanford.
At this rate, President Obama will have an easy time with re-election in 2012 because there won't be any Republicans left who haven't hit the self-destruct button.
I'm reading that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, apparently upset about a Vanity Fair article out this week that quoted anonymous former McCain staffers who said that she was difficult to work with, has decided to quit.
No, not in the sense of 'won't run for re-election.' More in the sense of 'I quit.' Now.
In a stunning move, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's 2008 vice presidential running mate, announced today that she'll resign later in the month and won't seek a second term next year.
Palin, a possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate, didn't answer any questions today and remains mum about her future intentions.
McCain, an Arizona Republican, made Palin a household name nearly a year ago when he picked her to join his ticket. On the national scene, Palin is one of those political figures who inspires passion in supporters and detractors alike. This week, Vanity Fair published a lengthy critical piece on Palin that allowed anonymous former McCain-Palin campaign officials to bash her.
Which, in my opinion, only proves that those who were concerned that she was too flaky and erratic to be President are right. Far from 'balancing' the ticket, the McCain-Palin ticket was erratic and inconsistent paired with erratic and inconsistent.
According to University of Virginia Political Science guru Larry Sabato, "Bizarro World: Sarah Palin just committed national political suicide by resigning as Governor of Alaska."
He's right about that. And every week another potential 2012 Republican Presidential candidate commits Hari-kiri.
Two weeks ago, it was John Ensign, who was in Iowa testing Presidential waters even as his fate was being sealed. One week ago it was South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Now it is Palin.
This benefits President Obama in two ways. First of course, potential 2012 foes are dropping like flies, but second this is now the third weekend when the GOP would prefer to talk about their opposition to health care, climate change legislation or Sonia Sotomayor but they will be competing in getting their message out with the weekly Republican meltdown story. In fact, the only Republican who is probably counting this as good luck is Mark Sanford.
At this rate, President Obama will have an easy time with re-election in 2012 because there won't be any Republicans left who haven't hit the self-destruct button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)