Arizona & Mississippi: A Tale of Two States and Anti-Gay Religious Bigotry

As most of you know, Arizona's SB1062 was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer after passage by the Republican dominated Arizona Legislature.  What a lot of you might not know, thanks to our feckless media, is that Mississippi's legislature not only passed a bill almost identical to Arizona's vetoed SB1062, but that Mississippi's Republican Governor Phil Bryant signed it into law last week.

That's right, Mississippi now has legalized religiously based discrimination towards gays and lesbians (and anyone else they don't like).  Now, Mississippi has never been a hotbed of equality towards gays as it doesn't have an employment non-discrimination law nor does it have a housing non-discrimination law.  But this law codifies such discrimination toward gays and lesbians in all aspects of their lives in the state of Mississippi.

But why did Governor Brewer veto such legislation while Governor Bryant signed such legislation into law?  The short answer?  We gays and lesbians, with the help of our allies as well as state and national business interests, were able to shine a powerful spotlight on Arizona.  That spotlight forced Governor Brewer to put the needs of the state above religious bigotry.  It was fairly easy to shine that spotlight on Arizona as it has a recent history of discriminatory laws, such as the infamous "living while brown law", SB1070.

Mississippi was able to fly under the media wire and not be forced into the spotlight because it has no major league sports team, isn't vying to be the home of a new Tesla factory and a host of other high tech companies.  We gays and lesbians had no chance to stop the legislation, even though we all knew about it, even if the so called "liberal" MSM was asleep at the wheel.  We had no allies to bring to bear and assert political pressure.  As much as we wanted to prevent such legislation, let alone it becoming law, it just was never going to be.

Hopefully the courts will be able to strike down this religiously based bigotry law.

Marriage Equality Update

Even after the victories for marriage equality in Maine, Washington and Delaware (and to a lesser extent Minnesota), all eyes will be in the US Supreme Court this Friday as they head into a long delayed private conference to tackle 6 petitions related to marriage equality.  Two of the cases involve a right previously recognized and then removed by either popular vote, Proposition 8 in California, or by legislative action as in regards to the case out of Arizona.  The remaining petitions deal with the notorious so called Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

The question they will answer in conference is which, if any, of the cases they will hear oral arguments on.  They could deny cert and let the lower courts' decisions to stand without comment, they could decide to hear each of the individual cases, combing those asking the same basic constitutional question or they could remand to the lower courts with or for clarification.

After talking to a friend who has experience with the Supreme Court and considering the ideologies of the individual justices, I believe the following decisions will be made:

• Prop 8 and Arizona - Both cases basically come down to can a right that was recognized be taken away.  In both cases, the 9th Circuit ruled that no, you can't take a way a right previously recognized.  I think the Supreme Court is going to deny cert in both cases.  As much as certain justices might be biting at the bit to rule one way or the other, I believe that they don't want to delve into this issue just yet.  By denying the cert, they don't have to rule on the broader issues and the decisions of the lower courts are narrow enough for the Justices to feel comfortable in denying cert.
• DOMA - I think the Justices will agree to hear the cases, but in a combined format.  I also think that the Justices will punt by deciding which standard of scrutiny the various courts are supposed to use in regards to marriage equality without dealing with whether or not DOMA is constitutional.

As anyone knows with the Supreme Court, any guess as to how the Justices will decide is just that, a guess.  What we can be assured of is that President Obama will most likely have the opportunity to appoint three, maybe even four justices.  This fact could way heavily on the Justices or it may not matter at all.

Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSBlog is doing a great preview of the cases.  Be sure to check it out for more views.

Hell is for Children

Every state (and some major cities/counties) has a department/agency that is tasked with helping and protecting children who may be in unstable homes or are the victims of abuse and/or neglect. These agencies tend to be severely understaffed with woefully inadequate equipment and operating under severe budget constraints.  A lot of these agencies have also had their primary mission of goal of doing what is in the best interest of the child changed into preserving the family.

Employees of these agencies are in a noble, if thankless, pursuit: The preservation of a child’s life.  These employees work long, stressful hours and are often on call 24/7 for extremely low pay.  Facing high caseloads (in Arizona, the caseload for each “caseworker” monitoring families is 31 while those monitoring children is 26 which is 60% above state standards) and heartbreaking cases, there is a high turnover rate.  Continued budget cuts only threaten to exacerbate these trends.

Legislators (especially conservatives) love to hate child protection agencies.  They see these agencies as being threats to families and specifically to parental rights.  These legislators are the one who changed the mission from doing what’s in the best interest of the child into preservation of the family.  They also see such agencies as easy targets for budget cuts.  But no matter how many constraints they put on such agencies, legislators never take responsibility for the inevitable deaths that occur.

These agencies will never be perfect, but we can work toward making them more perfect.  We can start by increasing funding to hire more caseworkers (including increasing pay and benefits).  We can also increase funding to purchase needed equipment and software for caseworkers to better access information and track cases.  More money won’t be able to do it all though.  We also need legislators to stop thinking of child protection agencies as the enemy and instead as a much needed safeguard for the least among us.

The constant demonization of child protection agencies does no one any good, especially when legislators are more at fault for an at-risk child’s death than they care to admit.  Legislators need to understand that when they cut any part of the social safety net, they put more strain on child protection agencies.  When they cut the budgets of child protection agencies on top of cutting parts of the social safety net, they set up situations where more children will die.  Children who could have been saved.

If the Arizona Republic notes, in a rare moment of conscience, that we need to “respect the problem”, you know the issue is grave.  The question is: Will the Arizona Legislature do right by the children in need of protecting or will they kick the can down the road and allow more senseless child deaths to occur on their watch?

I weep for our children as this is Arizona and our legislature is not known for doing the right thing.

Who's Really Behind the Bible Elective Push in Arizona?

Who is really behind Arizona State Representative Terri Proud’s (R-LD 26) push to allow public and “charter” schools in Arizona to offer as an elective a course titled, “The Bible and its Influence on Western Culture”?  Are the people requesting this bill really public school educators too scared to even mention the bible in their classes or is it an organization with different intentions, such as maybe CAP (Center for Arizona Policy) or ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)?

The reason I ask is that while going through national news, I came across this story out of New Hampshire:

"The Holy Bible is the bedrock of Western civilization. Love it or hate it, it's in every aspect of humanity," said sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin of Manchester.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

"A lot of it has to do with debunking a lot of ignorance that our districts are trying to force upon the teachers," she said. "There are people out there who hate the Bible and everything about it. That's fine, but don't deprive our children of biblical literature because of your personal feelings."

So, my question is:  Representative Proud, who really requested this bill and what are their real motives?

I think we have a right to know.

Arizona Republicans: Destroying Arizona One Law At A Time

Elected Republicans in Arizona have done a lot of damage over the years.  Besides constantly cutting taxes they have:

Cut off new enrollment for adults without children in the state’s Medicaid program AHCCCS.

Voted against extending unemployment benefits to be paid for by the Federal government.

Created quasi-private “charter” schools in the name of “school choice”.

Created tax credits for those who donate to “scholarship funds” for private and parochial schools.

Enacted the infamous “living while brown” law known as SB1070.

Raided special funds of the Department of Transportation, forcing the closure of Arizona’s rest stops.

Raided special funds of the State’s park department forcing the closure of most of the state parks.

Sold off the state capital buildings in a complex lease-buy-back scheme.

Cut public school funding.

And that’s just some of the damage that elected Republicans have done to Arizona.  But Republicans aren’t content with the damage they have done.  Now that they face the prospect of losing their death grip on the Arizona legislature this November, they are hell bent inflicting even more damage upon Arizona.

One state legislator has introduced a bill requiring public schools to offer as an elective a course on the Bible and its influence on Western society.  Another legislator has introduced a bill requiring that a class devoted to the “free markets” be passed in order for a student to graduate from public schools.  Yet another legislator has proposed increasing the tax credit given to those who donate to private and parochial school “scholarship funds”.  It should be noted that the same legislator is the head of such an “scholarship” organization.

Speaker Andy Tobin is pushing to have his secretly designed redistricting maps approved by voters in a special election.  Other legislators are pushing to put up for vote the elimination of the AIRC and to allow the legislature once again to determine redistricting maps.

Now the Republicans want to strip all public employees at every level of government in the state of their right to collectively bargain.  It is not enough that Arizona is a so called “right to work” state.  No, they want to destroy the last major unions in the state, the public unions.  Firefighters, police, teachers, etc would all be disallowed from collectively bargain.  Plus, union dues could no longer be automatically deducted from their paychecks.

Elected Republicans know that any damage they do before the elections this November won’t be easily repaired or reversed, if at all.  They know that because constitutionally it takes a super majority of both house of the legislature for any tax increase, that their tax cuts will stand.  They know that because taxes can’t be reversed that their cuts to public education and the social safety net will stand.

So, the damage will continue and the future of Arizona isn’t looking so good.

The Quest To Protect The Republican Super Majority

The Republicans have a stranglehold on Arizona politics.  This is an undeniable fact.  Republicans control all state wide elected offices including Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State.  They have a super-majority in the Arizona Legislature.  They also hold six of eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and both seats in the U.S. Senate.  A pretty good feat considering Republicans make up only 36% of registered voters in Arizona.  Democrats make up 33% and independents (those with no party affiliation) make up 30%.

In a state where even most Democrats are moderate to conservative, party affiliation does mean a lot.  To be a Republican means you are almost guaranteed a seat at the table of power.  To be an ultra-conservative Republican improves those odds even more.  Independents are deemed to be the deciding factor in close races and even they tend to vote Republican when push comes to shove.

In a state with a registered political make up that is split almost evenly between Republicans, Democrats and independents, you would think that the Republicans couldn’t enjoy such success.  In steps the affect of redistricting:  The process of creating congressional and legislative districts that is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  Before 2000, the Arizona legislature was tasked with creating the various districts and it did everything possible to secure a permanent Republican majority in the state legislature as well as congressional representation.

In 2000, voters were so fed up with the protection of incumbents that they stripped the legislature of its authority to redistrict and put that authority into the newly created Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  The AIRC isn’t tasked with simply redrawing existing districts to meet its charge.  It must start from scratch, thus ensuring that the state’s congressional and legislative district maps change dramatically decade from decade.  To give a quick example of the dramatic change: I currently reside in what is Congressional District 3, but under the draft map, I would be in Congressional District 6.

Now, the AIRC is composed of 5 members.  Two are Democrats, each of who were nominated by the respective Democratic leaders in both houses of the legislature.  Two are Republicans, each of who were nominated by the respective Republican leaders in both houses of the legislature.  The registered independent is picked by the other 4 members of the AIRC.  In my opinion, there should be 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 3 registered independents, but that will require a voter modification that could turn very messy.

Throw into the redistricting mix the fact that Arizona is one of the states required to receive “pre-clearance” of their efforts by the U.S. Justice Department before the new districts can go into effect.  The 2001 AIRC was actually rebuffed by the Bush Justice Department for not protecting minority voters and had to reconfigure their maps to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.  We are all hoping that the 2011 AIRC doesn’t repeat the same mistake.

Now that I have some of the background laid out, let’s fast forward to 2011.  The AIRC members were chosen in great controversy, some with court challenges, all due to the machinations of state Senate Majority Leader Russell Pearce and Speaker of the House Andy Tobin.  After the members of the AIRC were formally seated, the “tea party” movement tried to call into dispute the AIRC’s legitimacy, even getting Attorney General Horne to open an “investigation” into accusations of the AIRC violating Arizona’s open meetings law.

Through all of this, the five members of the AIRC have done their job and have approved draft maps of congressional and legislative districts.  Now that the draft maps have been adopted, the public has 30 days to comment and recommend changes.  In steps the Republican elected officials and their bold claim that the draft maps represent too much competiveness and threaten their respective incumbencies.  They are hell bent on protecting the Republican super majority in the legislature and the Republican majority of held seats in the House of Representatives.  Of course, they are bitching about draft maps, not the final product.  And like it or not, they will probably bitch more after it the final maps go through pre-clearance.

 I myself am not happy with the draft maps because they allow for safe districts for both Republicans and Democrats while only proposing three competitive districts.  I think every district should be competitive, giving anyone running a real chance to win.  No district should be “safe” for one party or for an incumbent.  No one party or incumbent should feel they are entitled to their elected seat.

I think the goals of meeting the requirements of the full mandate of the AIRC can be done with full competitiveness and without gerrymandering.  The AIRC just has to have the will do so and I don’t think they do.  I think, they will bend to Republican political pressure and adopt final maps that won’t be pre-cleared by the DOJ.  I am hoping the AIRC does the right thing.  I just don’t think it will, which will be a huge disservice to the voters of Arizona.

For more information about meetings of the AIRC, please take a look at The Arizona Eagletarian and his great work.

Stop Vilifying American Labor - A Labor Day Message

Monday, September 5th, is Labor Day, a day designated to celebrate the American worker.  Yet, we have very little celebrate this year.  Legislatures around the nation have curtailed or eliminated the right of civil servants (public employees) to collectively bargain.  The month of August showed a net gain of zero jobs, nationally and it is projected that unemployment will remain above six percent until at least 2014.  In Arizona we have seen the refusal of the Republican super majority in the legislature to pass legislation that would have extended federally funded unemployment benefits.

We have a president who has shown no real love organized labor or American workers, preferring to "play nice" with the Republicans in Congress.  In fact, the only time President Obama seems to have a backbone is when he is scolding us liberals for not supporting him and his Milton Friedman economic policies.  I actually don't want President Obama to do any type of a speech regarding jobs, because its just a waste of time.  We all know that he will "compromise" everything away in regards to real job creation.

But labor isn't just under attack by politicians.  Mr. Bill Tennant of Sun City West wrote in a Letter to the Editor:

We will soon observe Labor Day, which was set aside primarily to celebrate and honor the so-called working class in America.

This is a great, rightful and noble cause.

Before my retirement, I was a member for some time of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the Teamsters Union.

My wife and I later operated our own very successful business for 17 years, until she passed away. So, as you can see, I have had adequate experience on both sides of the fence.

Conclusion: Neither labor nor management can even begin to prosper without the other.

So, why don't we be fair and equal about it and have something like "Labor/Management Day" to give honor to both?

For both labor and management absolutely deserve top honors in the total scheme of things.

Basically Mr. Tennant is saying that we need to stop picking on management and celebrate how benevolent management has always been.  What a fucking load of bullshit.  Management doesn't care about labor, except for its costs.  If management actually cared about the average worker, they wouldn't be trying to offshore as many jobs as possible.  If management actually cared about the average worker, they would reduce their own salaries, stock options and stock warrants.

No, we need to get back to celebrating American labor, not vilifying it.

Preserving the Super Majority, Arizona Style

Is it me or do the Republicans in Arizona care more about staying in a super majority in the state legislature than they do about governing for all?  I know, it is kind of silly question, but one still needs to ask it.

My friend over at The Arizona Eagletarian has been reporting on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee and their attempts to fulfill the mandate of the Arizona voters.  The voters of Arizona approved a constitutional amendment that took redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and placed in the hands of an “independent” commission.  The voters’ goal was that this commission would create competitive legislative and congressional districts that protected neither Democrats nor Republicans.

But the UC/TF and “tea party” movement members of the Republican Party appear to see the AIRC as a threat to the newly won Republican super majority, if not the majority they have enjoyed for over 40 years.  They have focused their attacks onto the chairwoman who is the only independent on the commission.  They claim that because her husband worked as a consultant for Democrats (forgetting that he had also worked for Republicans), that she was really a secret Democrat.

They have also raised issue with the fact that the commission chose a mapping consultant that has worked with Democratic and liberal groups, most notably the Obama 2008 campaign.  Never mind that the Republicans on the commission rated the chosen consultant the highest, even if they didn’t vote for it.

The UC/TF and “tea party” is also making efforts to call a special session of the legislature to remove the chairperson for being a secret Democrat and also to place on the 2012 ballot an effort to return redistricting to the legislature.  Add to this that UC/TF Republican state Attorney General Tom Horne has launched an “investigation” into the actions of the AIRC.  All of this of course is to discredit the AIRC in the eyes of public.

All of this is bullshit of course.  Their true intention is not to make the AIRC “fair” and “transparent”.  No, their true intention is to eliminate the AIRC and turn redistricting back over to the legislature in order to preserve the Republican majority and super majority.  Their greatest fear is that if the AIRC creates truly competitive districts that meet the standards of the Voting Rights Act that Democrats will gain control of the legislature and reverse the damage done to the state by decades of UC/TF Republican rule.

Their fear is not without basis and that’s why they are working so hard to preserve their super majority against the will of the voters.

Supreme Court Kicks Open Door to Tax Payer Funding of Religious Schools While Closing Door to Tax Payers for Relief

In a 5-4 decision, the five Roman Catholic* justices affirmed the ability of the Arizona legislature to divert tax payer monies to parochial schools through the use of tax credits while denying the right of tax payers to challenge such diversions.  By denying standing to the plaintiffs in the 14 year old case, the Supreme Court basically closed the door to all tax payers to challenge laws that funnel monies to parochial schools and institutions in breach of the separation of church and state.

A little history, as I understand it.  In Arizona, a person may "donate" monies to a "scholarship" fund that supports students of private and parochial schools.  Those "donated" monies then are reimbursed dollar for dollar up to $1000 in the form of tax credits.  Not tax deductions but tax credits.  The state claims that since they are giving a credit only for the "donation" it is not funding private or parochial schools.

The Supreme Court today, for all intents and purposes, agreed with the state.  But they did so in the insidious manner of denying "standing" to the plaintiffs.  In other words, the 5 conservative justices said "fuck you" to tax payers who feel that the state is willfully breaking through the wall that separates church and state.  The conservatives on the Roberts Court enjoy denying standing when they cannot twist the Constitution enough to support their agenda.  In this particular case, they basically shut the court house door to any tax payer who has a gripe about how tax payer monies are spent.

So, even though my tax payer monies are being spent to support parochial schools, the Supreme Court has ruled that I have no standing to challenge such support.

I guess only the rich, powerful and corporations will now have access to the Roberts Court.

*I use the term "Roman Catholic" to denote that the 5 justices (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito) are all of the conservative strain of Catholicism.  I am also of the opinion that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and possibly even Thomas are of the Opus Dei strain of Roman Catholics, thus making them ultra-conservative Catholics.  This is not to demean Catholics, but merely to point out that the decisions by the 5 conservative justices often adhere to the orthodoxy of the very conservative strain of Catholicism.

The Unholy Union

I think we can all agree that certain members of the "elite" are well benefited by the policies of the modern Republican Party and the current manifestation of social conservatives, the "tea party" movement.  We can also agree that the elite would like nothing better than a permanent underclass in this nation that can be used for cheap if not slave labor.  We already see the start of it with high unemployment and the refusal of companies to hire those recently unemployed.

Now the Republicans have systematically been attacking organized labor, in particular those civil service employees represented by unions.  We have seen the attacks on public sector unions in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey and Florida.  The attempts to weaken if not destroy the public sector unions is mostly allow for the privatization of services provided by the various governments.  If there are no unions to represent the workers, they can't fight against privatization.

With the unions representing civil service workers gone, the next step will be to more or less criminalize private sector unions.  This has been the dream of American corporations for over a century.  If they can break the unions by criminalizing them, then they will have removed the last impetus to wholesale slashing of wages and benefits.

But getting rid of unions isn't enough.  You need people to be truly terrified of being out of work by getting rid of the social safety net.  If there is no social safety net workers won't want to demand higher wages for fear of losing their jobs.  We already see element of this with Michigan cutting the number of weeks someone can receive unemployment benefits and Arizona looking to remove up to 300,000 people from the state's Medicare rolls.

With permanent unemployment of 20% or more and no social safety net, those who will be lucky enough to be employed will be too scared to fight for better working conditions, higher wages and benefits.  It has been a long process in the making, requiring the right economic disaster to foment the right type of fear.  The Republicans are laying the legal groundwork for the elite to have their permanent underclass.

It is an unholy union that must be stopped.  The question is: Can we stop it?

The Greatest Evil

Wisconsin Governor Walker is evil. His attempts to destroy the public sector unions in Wisconsin, his attempts to sell off public utilities in “no bid” deals, his attempts to consolidate power in regards to Medicaid and his apparent desire to send in the National Guard to break up those protesting against him, make him evil.

The Republicans in the Arizona Legislature are evil. This week they passed out of committee a bill to abolish the state’s Medicaid program, AHCCCS. They also passed out of committee bills to turn hospital employees into immigration officials, force children going to school that they are U.S. citizens, eliminate birthright citizenship and dissolve the Board of Regents.

Then we have Republicans across the nation proposing state laws that would allow anyone to legally assassinate someone involved in an abortion. Not to mention the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to defund Planned Parenthood and are considering redefining rape.

Colonel Moammar Gadhafi has sent his air force against those rebelling against him as well as arming civilian government supporters. But then again, we have always known that Colonel Gadhafi is evil.

But none of these evils can hold a candle to the greatest evil of them all:

Arizona State Senate Committee Abolishes Medicaid / AHCCCS Program

The adherents of Grover Norquist in the Arizona Senate have escalated the war on the poor and the working poor by voting to abolish Arizona's Medicaid program, AHCCCS.  After 1:00 am on Wednesday morning, the Senate's Appropriation Committee voted 8 to 5 to eliminate AHCCCS and divert the monies to the general fund for other programs.

As I have noted before, Governor Brewer would like to kick up to 300 thousand men, women and children out of AHCCCS in order to provide $538 million a year in new corporate welfare.  Now Senator Andy Biggs (R-Gilbert) has dropped a dirty bomb on the people of Arizona that will eliminate not only health care coverage for the poor and working poor, but it will also eliminate $7.5 billion in matching federal funding.  That is $7.5 billion that the Arizona can ill afford to lose.

This measure is catastrophic to Arizona.  Rural hospitals will be forced to close.  Remaining hospitals will see their emergency rooms fill up and their finances destroyed as those formally in AHCCCS will be forced to seek the much more costly alternative.  This is not to mention the businesses that will refuse to expand or move to Arizona.  Hell, we will be lucky if businesses chose to remain in Arizona if AHCCCS were eliminated.

As much as people like Senator Biggs would like to claim their elimination of AHCCCS is about saving Arizona money, the reality is that it fits their ideology like a glove.  I truly believe that they only want government for the protection of corporations and those that can afford it.  Contrary to that ideology, I believe government is there to protect all of us, especially those who can't afford it.

Shawna Forde Gets Death Penalty

Courtesy of Reuters

I am not a fan of the death penalty as it is currently applied around the nation.  I think it is too costly and applied without equality or justice.  I don't think it is a deterrent to those who would commit crimes that supporters believe it is.  With that being said, I think this morning's jury decision to sentence domestic terrorist and former Minuteman Shawna Forde to death by lethal injection is correct.

The death penalty is the ultimate act of retribution by the state.  It is not about deterring crime and bringing closure for the victims of crime.  It is about exacting state sanctioned revenge on a person or persons for the crime they were convicted of.  Too often we ignore that fact.  We like to think we are speaking for the victim, that we are being noble.

There is nothing noble in the death penalty.  It is a brutal act that plays to our basest animal desires.  We desire revenge.  We desire retribution.  We desire the finality.  Justice and nobility play no part in our desires.

The senseless deaths of Raul Flores and his daughter, Bresenia, call out to be avenged.  The jury has heard that call and I think it has also imposed justice.  I desire no mercy for Shawna Forde.  This is one of the few times where I agree that the death penalty is just, maybe even noble.

Arizona: The Grand Nut Job State

As reported by my friends over at the Phoenix New Times, today the Arizona Senate makes war on all human beings and the United States Constitution.  Senate President Russell Pearce and his allies are bound and determined to rebrand Arizona as the Grand Nut Job State.  For you Buffy fans, think of the Arizona State House as being on the Hellmouth and Senator Pearce is the First Evil.

One bill being "debated" today will be in direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship.  Another bill will require employees of hospitals to become immigration agents, while another bill will force students to prove that they are U.S. citizens.  Let's not forget the bill to eliminate the state Medicaid program, ACCCHS.

Arizona has a legitimate image problem and today isn't going to help.  Of course, this is designed to divert attention away from Arizona's self-inflicted budget deficit and the fact that the Republicans only plan to "balance" the budget is on the backs of the poor and working poor while diverting hundreds of millions for more corporate welfare.

Today is going to be a dark day in Arizona that will be felt nationwide.

Stop Saying We Are Broke

Now that the Arizona Legislature has passed $538 million a year in new corporate welfare, can we stop saying that Arizona is broke?  The argument for the last few years has been that we need to cut state spending because we don't have the money to balance our budget.  In fact, that was the argument used when Governor Brewer sought a waiver to cut $540 a million a year from the state's Medicaid program, ACCCHS.

Saying we are broke is a lie.  Our state has revenue shortfalls primarily due to our over reliance on sales taxes and our constant cutting of other taxes such as property and income.  Of course, those that lie about the state being broke while shoveling out corporate welfare are the same ones who lie about tax cuts paying for themselves.  The myth that tax cuts somehow generate more revenue for the state is perpetuated by those who have sworn allegiance to Grover Norquist and his "starve the beast" scheme.

In fact, the adherents of Grover Norquist have also sworn to not raise taxes.  In Arizona that's an easy promise to make as it takes a 3/4ths majority of both house of the legislature to raise taxes and only a simple majority to cut taxes.  They keep braying that people don't want higher taxes, which is another lie, since the voters of Arizona approved a temporary 1 cent increase in the sales tax for three years to help prevent cuts in education and other programs.

No, Arizona isn't broke, its just run by a bunch of mental midgets who have sworn their allegiance to Grover Norquist and his Milton Friedman ideals.

The Goldwater Institute: Ignoring Maricopa County Government

In a previous postings, I talked about how Maricopa County is the center of the dysfunctional universe and how to fix the problem.  That dysfunction has led to over $106 million in lawsuits by county supervisors, current employees and former employees.  What is worse, is the fact the supervisors will have the final say over who gets the money, funded by the tax payers, and it seems there is nothing anyone can do about it.  Oh, if only there were an organization that proclaims to be libertarian and a protector of tax payers to come to our rescue.

The Goldwater Institute proclaims to be such an institution.  They have filed lawsuit after lawsuit against various Arizona governments in regards to use of tax monies.  For some reason though, they are deathly silent in regards to the mess that is Maricopa County government.  No lengthy position paper.  No press conference decrying how the tax payers are getting screwed.  And definitely, no lawsuit.

Why is the Goldwater Institute so quiet in regards to Maricopa County government?  What are they scared of?  Are they giving up their status as a libertarian watchdog of government?  It would be nice to know who will be sticking up for Maricopa County tax payers, because it doesn't appear to be the Goldwater Institute.

Fixing Maricopa County

As I posted earlier, Maricopa County government is a disaster and is the center of the dysfunctional universe known as Arizona.  I make the following proposal as a means of if not eliminating the conflicts inherent in Maricopa County governments than at least it might just mitigate them.

The Proposal: Replace the current form of county government (board of supervisors, various semi-autonomous elected offices and the courts) with one modeled on the state and federal clearly defined three branches of government system.  This system would also eliminate the positions of constable and justice of the peace.

• The Office of the County Executive - The people of Maricopa County would vote for a County Executive and a Vice-Executive to run the day to day operations of the county.  The county treasurer, county recorder, clerk of courts, county school superintendent, county attorney and county sheriff would all become appointed positions and there respective departments would be folded into the OCE.  The County Executive and Vice-Executive could serve no more than two total four year terms.  The CE would also have veto authority over the County Legislature.
• The County Legislature - The people of Maricopa County would elect a county legislature that would handle the passing of policies, codes, regulations, county laws and budget.  The CL would also be required to approve the appointments made by the OCE to head the various departments.  The CL would be made up of one legislator for every 200,000 residents in Maricopa County based on U.S. Census data every five years.  Each legislator could serve no more than two full six year terms with one third of the CL up for election every two years.
• The County Courts - The County Executive shall appoint members, with approval of the County Legislature, the members of the county judiciary to four year terms with voter retention kept in place.  The CE shall also appoint, with approval of the CL, seven members of the Supreme Judicial County Court to terms of six years with voter retention in place.  The SJCC would act as an appellate court for non-capital crimes and only its members may hear capital crime cases.

These fundamental changes in how Maricopa County is governed and how the day to day operations are handled.  By making the offices of county attorney and county sheriff non-elected, it allows more professional and less politically motivated people to attain those positions and bring some much needed sanity back to those offices.  The reign of Sheriff Joe Arpaio should be proof enough of that.

Sanity must be brought back to Maricopa County and the only way to do it is to start over and I think my proposal is one that could work and could be approved by the voters of Maricopa County.

Cindy McCain: Soon to be Senator Cindy McCain?

I wonder if Cindy McCain is setting herself up as the "moderate" choice for Republicans when her husband passes away with her continued appearances in the NOH8 campaign.  I know, I know.  I am a ghoul for even thinking that Senator John McCain (R - Arizona) will die, but we have to look at the realities.

1. Senator McCain is 74 years old.
2. There is the possibility that Senator McCain will die while in office and before his term expires in 2016.
3. If Senator McCain does die while in office, under state law, a Republican must be chosen as his replacement, from three names provided by the Arizona Republican Party.
4. Arizona is a very red state and if Cindy McCain has political aspirations, as a moderate she would have a snow balls chance in Phoenix of winning at the ballot box on her own, but she could persuade the Arizona Republican Party to place her name in nomination.
5. By being appointed to her late husbands vacant seat to serve out the rest of his term, she would become an automatic incumbent, one wealthy enough to be able to fund her own campaign if necessary.
6. Governor Brewer would have political cover for appointing Cindy McCain as the next Senator since it is really the state Republican Party's choice.

Of course, this is all speculation and I could be very wrong.  But one has to wonder, why is Cindy McCain being so visible in being a moderate when she could just as easily be whispering into Senator McCain's ear to knock off the rhetoric and do what's right.

Only time will tell.