After weeks of stalling, (and LOTS of thumb twiddling) followed by several days of press coverage claiming that Speaker Andy Tobin had scheduled the Senate passed budget bills to be voted on in the House -- without any committee agendas to verify the claim -- John Kavanagh's House Appropriations committee finally has posted an agenda for Monday, June 10 (10am in House Hearing Room 1).
Good news? Well, given that only one of the 10 bills in question are included on it, I'd say -- not necessarily.
Which one of the bills, you ask? Well, of course it's the one that includes Medicaid restoration.
Hmmm, what was that old saying about idle hands? And what about the other NINE Senate budget bills? Your guess is as good as mine at this point. However, Mary Jo Pitzl, reporting for the Arizona Republic last night wrote about Tobin having competing budget bills.
Tobin’s budget is likely to get a hearing in the House Appropriations Committee next week, setting the stage for a full-House showdown over the key sticking point in the budget: Medicaid expansion.
Of course, following the pattern Tobin set last week of announcing he had set the Senate budget for a vote in the House (without any hearing being posted until today), there is no evidence yet of Tobin's budget bills being introduced or assigned to committees for hearing. And they are certainly not (yet) on the House Approps agenda for Monday.
Oh, and there's a Senate CPS bill (SB1069) that's going to be sacrificed on the altar of homage to Cathi Herrod.
Kavanagh will apparently be offering a strike all amendment for SB 1069 to make abortion clinic licensing and regulation even more onerous than it already is.
Herrod apparently is good at drawing crowds for protests/rallies, even when it's close to 110 outside. God (and Arizona lawmakers) save the pre-born, but to hell with them a day after they take their first breath.
After sitting on the state budget bills passed by the Senate three weeks ago, Speaker Andy Tobin finally scheduled those bills for consideration in the House. The bills all have been assigned to John Kavanagh's Appropriations committee.
In this linked video clip from Sunday Square Off a few weeks ago, Kavanagh sounds a lot like Senate President Biggshot did last month.
Kavanagh says he believes the Medicaid Restoration will be stripped out of the Senate bill when it is heard in his committee. He goes on to say that he thinks it will be put back in the bill during floor debate as an amendment offered by either a friendly Republican or a Democrat.
I've heard nothing thus far to contradict that assessment.
No agenda has yet been posted for House Appropriations. I will keep an eye on the legislature's website to let you know when the bills will be heard.
UPDATE From Sen. Steve Farley and his "Friends O'Farley" report:
Progress looked pretty slow today until Speaker Tobin casually announced a first reading of all the Senate budget bills, and assigned them all to the Appropriations Committee.
Where they go from there is less certain.
We do know that the Speaker met with the Governor on the topic yesterday, clearing the way for action, so his moving the bills is a hopeful sign that he will support them or at least not stand in their way, a classy move on his part.
The Approps Chair, John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) is no fan of the Medicaid restoration, so he may well try to gut the bills in committee, but I am hearing that there will be enough bipartisan votes on the floor to strip off the Approps amendments, returning them to their original state, which would mean that passage would send them straight to the Governor's desk, not back to the uncertain fate of a Senate conference committee.
The Medicaid restoration is part of the budget's Health bill, meaning that any reasonable amendments agreed upon with the Governor to make Medicaid more palatable to the Speaker would still go back to the Senate, but would avoid a conference committee because that bill's sponsor is John McComish (R-Ahwautukee). As a supporter of the Medicaid restoration, he would be able to simply concur with the amendments and send it to the Governor after a vote that would pass with the same coalition from two weeks ago.
The final House vote on the budget could happen by Thursday or Friday of this week, with a final Senate concurrence on any amended budget bills potentially next Wednesday, with the session ending by the following Thursday. Of course, very few things go as planned in the Legislature, so there are no guarantees, except that I will keep you informed.
In any case, the renewed movement is good news, and portends a possible end to the session as early as next week. Hopefully, there will be much to share in the next Farley Report.
For those of you who are worried about former Senators Frank Antenori and Ron Gould organizing an effort to refer the Medicaid restoration to the November 2014 ballot (suspending the enactment and forcing the State to unnecessarily spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the meantime while our hospitals and tens of thousands of citizens remain at risk), I believe you can relax a bit.
Court cases have already declared clearly that budget-related bills are not subject to the referendum provisions of the Arizona Constitution. I hope that Mr Antenori and Mr Gould will soon understand the fruitlessness of their efforts to destroy our state's economy and healthcare system in order to get a few more minutes in the sun. The people of Arizona are sick of those kinds of partisan games. It's time to move into the bipartisan, moderate future charted out by the Senate budget.
As of this update, there is still no committee agenda posted for House Appropriations. I think Farley's insight on budget bills not being subject to referenda is important.
From the Arizona Republic story on the Antenori/Gould/Bauserman effort,
The Governor’s Office said neither challenge is legally sound. But the administration is prepared to fight them by arguing the new Medicaid law would be intertwined with the fiscal 2014 budget, which under the state Constitution cannot be referred to voters. It also argues that a two-thirds vote is not required because the hospital assessment would be imposed by the state’s Medicaid program, not the Legislature.
In this clip, Hamilton, who served 26 years in the Arizona House of Representatives explains that he thinks term limits has been a failure. He also said that even though he supported the Citizens Clean Elections Act, public financing of election campaigns has brought unforeseen negative impacts.
Hamilton's 26 years experience, Steen's academic research background and Zoellner's work with former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords certainly require us to consider the insight each shared. But despite their best intentions, I don't think this panel came anywhere near touching on the root cause of Arizona's political problems.
What you will not find on the recording is the portion of the Q and A session at the end where I posed a question about the influence of ALEC on public policy and lawmaking in our state. Yes, I was there that evening. The specifics of Hamilton's answer escape me now, but I still recall that he acknowledged the bias of the monstrosity of a lobbying cabal but not much more.
We have seen, over the last two decades, great interest of, by and for the people of Arizona regaining some semblance of control over what takes place in the legislature. Steen and Hamilton are most certainly correct in boiling it all down to the fact that a number reforms have been tried and thus far success has been extremely limited.
Yet, one "reform" measure that has been discussed many, many times concerns lobbyists spending money on lawmakers. They do so by making campaign contributions, buying gifts (food, tickets to sporting events, etc.) and, like in the case of ALEC, providing "scholarships" to conferences at luxury resorts (with plenty of personal amenities like golf and sight-seeing junkets).
Leading journalists in the largest newsrooms in Arizona have openly, to no avail, called for lawmakers to enact reforms -- at minimum to tighten reporting requirements -- to allow for closer scrutiny of the invisible hand that controls Arizona lawmaking.
In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor conceived by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace. The exact phrase is used just three times in Smith's writings, but has come to capture his important claim that individuals' efforts to maximize their own gains in a free market benefits society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions. (emphasis in original)
Some elected officials have even said they would push for such legislation (Bill Montgomery). None has been forthcoming. And none ever will, at least not any introduced by lawmakers themselves.
Evan Wyloge and Hank Stephenson at the Arizona Capitol Times reported on the limitations of our state's lobbyist reporting system. Among their findings,
Lawmakers perennially introduce bills with ideas to improve transparency in lobbying and accuracy in reporting, but they have managed to avoid voting on the proposals.
Adam Smith's concept of the "free market" on the other hand, is taken for granted when it comes to Republicans (and some ambitious Democrats) making laws in our state. Maybe considering Smith's contention that the invisible hand of the market (regarding lawmakers' votes on legislation) will ultimately benefit society provides a subconscious mechanism (rationalization) which allows lawmakers to believe they aren't really selling out their constituents when they -- without resistence -- do the bidding of the most influential lobbyists at the Capitol.
Activists on the left and the right do exert some level of influence on state lawmaking -- the degree of which, to my knowledge, has not been measured. I now call on political scientists and investigative journalists to devise methods to measure influence of activists and of lobbyists in legislatures throughout the country. When they do, voters will better be able to make informed decisions on candidates and on ballot measures for additional reforms.
In the meantime, I submit that even if Arizona is not a "meth lab of democracy," it appears to be an archetype of clandestine influence peddling.
-----
*NOTE -- at the beginning of the Zocalo clip, a graphic says the entire program is available to view on the Zocalo website. I looked diligently on that site and could not find it. However, C-Span.org DOES have the full length audio and video from this event.
The first regular session of the 51st Arizona Legislature began way back in January. We are now on the cusp of June with high temperatures every day for the next four months or so almost certain to exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
In these hot days, there is non-stop clamoring in the corporate media -- about the IRS being mean to the Tea Party, US Attorney General Eric Holder's latest misdeed, the Keystone XL Pipeline, whether Harry Reid is going to exercise the nuclear option to end GOP filibustering on Obama appointments to federal courts -- and countless other items which function as "shiny objects." Therefore, there's just no time, or space in the average citizen's head to realize or remember what could really be the most pressing issues of the day in Arizona.
One of those important issues, encapsulated in legislation that has long since passed out of our awareness, even for activists who want to do something about it, has to do with what I call the Lobbyist Shakedown Bill. Originally introduced on several pieces of legislation this session, the measure -- to dramatically relax limits on what individuals and PACs (political action committees) may contribute to candidates -- HB 2593 made it successfully through both chambers of the legislature and was signed by the governor more than six weeks ago.
One would have to have blinders on to not even begin to realize the quid pro quo ramifications of allowing people to contribute so much more to campaigns. Some Special Interests may have a hard time competing in this newly reformulated arena. But you can (very safely) bet that right at the top of the list of donors will be lobbyists for utilities in our state. Especially Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project.
A couple of days ago, the Arizona Eagletarian post -- about APS "thanking" state Rep. Catherine Miranda (along with Democratic state Sen. Robert Meza) by paying for a very professionally done mailer -- generated quite a bit of buzz at the Capitol. Not surprisingly, NOBODY has contacted me to deny the veracity of any part of that post.
The mailer was paid for by an Independent Expenditure committee run by GOP political operative Max Fose. IE committees are not even subject to the same kind of limits as a candidate's campaign committee.
About that buzz the other day at the Capitol. The Yellow Sheet, a gossip publication that operates on apparently much looser professional standards than a newsroom staffed by professional journalists, found the Arizona Eagletarian story on Miranda juicy enough to quote -- without giving proper attribution.
RETURNING THE FAVOR?
Exactly who is behind the Arizona 2014 campaign won’t be known until campaign finance reports are due in January 2014, but there is speculation in Dem circles that the money is coming from APS and is being spent on those lawmakers because they supported one of the utility’s bills this year. Liberal blogger Steve Muratore wrote this morning that his sources report that the pro-Miranda mailer “likely is thanks for her taking the lead in organizing a faction of five Hispanic members of the Arizona House Democratic caucus” who voted for H2485 (health & safety audit privilege). Muratore also reported that Meza (who also voted for the bill) and Miranda sat at the APS table at the May 18 Arizona Democratic Party Heritage Dinner fundraiser. Fose told our reporter that the benefactors of the IE spending aren’t based on votes on individual legislation, but are on “policies, records and positions in their entirety.” He said the committee will be doing more spending in the future.
Of course, "Liberal blogger" is the gossipy way to get out of having to identify the fact that a publication they consider to be a competitor scooped them. For them to truthfully and professionally attribute to the Arizona Eagletarian, apparently threatens their Yellow Sheet brand.
In this case, their insecurity shows through loud and clear. After all, I can't see them ever knowingly exposing the genuine relationship dynamics wrapped up in Special Interests buying influence at the Arizona Capitol. So, why would they have a problem with providing proper attribution?
I can guess... perhaps for them, legitimizing the Arizona Eagletarian, might undermine the credibility of their publication, which apparently willfully ignores influence peddling.
By the way, the Yellow Sheet did do a little bit of original reporting on that piece. They contacted Fose to get a quote from him about the situation. Note Fose's non-denial denial. With standard (bullshit) language equivalent to another shiny object, he denied the quid pro quo angle.
In this case, he minimizes the significance of the Independent Expenditure by saying it was because of “policies, records and positions in their entirety.” Translated into English, Fose is saying that Miranda and Meza are becoming nice, reliable, compliant Republicans.
But I digress.
The connection of Arizona Public Service to the five rogue members of the House Democratic Caucus hardly even scratches the surface of Special Interest influence right now at Shakedown City, Arizona.
There are several ways -- besides campaign contributions and IEs -- lobbyists interact with state lawmakers. One that is worthy of examination (that I'd love to do one of these days) is the annual softball games. Salt River Project hosts events like that at its Pera Club.
The other way lobbyists (especially the two biggest utilities) in Arizona reel in our lawmakers is with free food. During regular sessions, weather permitting, Special Interests try their hand at catching more flies with honey than with vinegar -- by hosting mass feeding events on the Senate lawn or across the street at Wesley Bolin Plaza -- for lawmakers, legislative staff and whoever else wanders by unafraid to partake* of the culinary offerings.
All of these things add up to having a huge invisible chain (or net) around lawmakers. By then, it takes an individual lawmaker having an incredible amount of resolve, rhetorical moxie and insight into whichever particular issue is being subjected to legislative action in order to resist doing the bidding of Big Money.
So, while it disappoints me to a fair degree, I'm not surprised when I read the following press release:
Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Submit Comments to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Proposed Rule for Navajo Generating Station; Letter Urges EPA to Convene Public Hearings Throughout Arizona Given Dramatic Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Rule
STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (May 28, 2013) – Today, a bipartisan majority of the Arizona House of Representatives will file the attached letter with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld. The document urges the agency to conduct broad public hearings throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area and rural areas during the EPA’s public comment period for its proposed regional haze rule for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Page, Ariz..
21 Republicans and Sixteen Democrat Members of the Arizona House of Representatives signed the letter signaling a strong, bi-partisan opposition to the proposed rule. The sweeping nature of the EPA’s proposed rule, the legislators argue, would have significant adverse impacts on Arizona families, tribes, businesses, agricultural interests and other key industries in the state through increased energy and water rates. There also is enormous risk to Arizona’s economy as thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost economic activity will impact the state every year. Public hearings are needed throughout the entire state to ensure a transparent process that reflects broad stakeholder engagement and input on the rule.
“The Navajo Generating Station provides affordable energy and water to Arizona. It’s disconcerting that its operation might be undermined—or worse, shut down altogether,” said House Speaker Andy Tobin. “If implemented, EPA’s rule would drive up water rates, jeopardize jobs, and severely damage Arizona’s economy.”
The EPA’s proposed rule rejects the detailed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) proposal submitted by NGS’s operator, Salt River Project, and would instead impose the installation of additional technology controls that could cost as much as $1.1 billion. Incredibly, the rule would yield no perceptible visibility improvement at the Grand Canyon, according to the government’s own study. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) concluded “the body of research to date…is inconclusive as to whether [installing additional controls] would lead to any perceptible improvement in visibility.”
NGS provides energy to the Central Arizona Project (CAP), which makes renewable, affordable water available to 80 percent of Arizona’s residents—45 percent in Phoenix alone. If NGS shuts down, or has to install these costly controls, it would result in a potential doubling or tripling of water rates throughout the state. Likewise, 3,400 skilled jobs and an estimated $20 billion in economic activity over the next three decades could be in jeopardy if NGS is forced to shut down due to the rule.
“The EPA must convene multiple public hearings in geographically diverse areas of the state so the agency can begin to understand firsthand how its proposed rule will harm the livelihood of Arizona families, businesses, and communities,” said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell. “All of us have a stake in this debate, and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle urge EPA to expand its study of the issue and ensure Arizonans’ voices are heard.”
Nevermind that the letter is complete bullshit. First, for any signer that questioned SRP's (the NGS operator) intention, they need only say, "but all we're asking for is for extensive public testimony." If you want to know what those public hearings will look like, review video from the 2011 redistricting hearings. Recall the concept of ASTROTURF.
Others may have needed little persuasion other than to say, hey the Obama administration's EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) wants to kill jobs. But those claims are easily debunked.
Because they've lured them all in with honey (which is incredibly sticky, if you'll recall), the utility interests need not deal with the pesky environmental interests that want to say, "HEY -- WAIT just a doggone minute! Don't you see what's been happening with Climate Change?"
Oh, by the way, don't forget the clever measure the legislature wants to put on next year's general election ballot to completely defund Clean Elections. Apparently, the Senate is sitting on this bill. It may be subject to Senate floor debate in the final overnight hours of the session, whenever that takes place.
The bottom line is that there is a very strong but invisible link between the behavior of Arizona's state lawmakers and Big Money. Your humble Arizona Eagletarian blog publisher will do everything possible (or, at least everything feasible) to keep you apprised of the developments.
-----
*NOTE -- Most of the time they can't really turn people away, but some might be too timid to just pick up a plate and serve themselves in what are usually buffet style offerings.
There are, no doubt, some dynamics I have yet to become aware of in the yearly drama of legislative adoption of the state budget. But some things are already known.
It has now been two weeks since the Senate passed a budget. That budget included Medicaid restoration which is one of Gov. Brewer's top priorities. The Senate proceedings included plenty of drama. And we know that there are twice as many members in the House as in the Senate.
Many observers have been waiting with excited anticipation, knowing the House will have significantly more drama.
We know that Speaker Andy Tobin has said he does not want to proceed with the Medicaid restoration unless at least half of his caucus supports the idea. We also know that House Appropriations Chairman John Kavanagh will put a lot of effort into subverting the governor's plan. As will many of the other stridently hard-right leaning House Republicans.
What I've seen nobody speculate about in writing, however, is the reason Tobin wants that much Republican support. It occurs to me that one possible reason is that he does not want to have to face the possibility of being replaced as Speaker at this stage (or at any point, for that matter).
Analysis of the 36-member Republican caucus indicates that it is possible for Tobin to wrangle those 18 GOP votes. But there's no question the Kavanagh's, Steve Smith's and other tea party leaning members will also be trying to twist arms in the other direction.
Anyway, one source inside the House tells me s/he heard it will be another three weeks before they get down to seriously working on the budget. If they then make any changes at all to the Senate bills, the budget will have to go back to the Senate. Which then adds another opportunity for Senate President Andy Biggs to throw a wrench in the works.
If the Senate does not concur with House changes, we're looking at possible state government shutdown come July 1. The federal government faces this kind of thing a lot too. But the excuse in Washington is that Congress and the executive branch (president) are not all controlled by the same political party. So, will Arizona just claim the dog ate the budget bills?
Ten years ago Phoenix New Times writer Robert Nelson suggested Arizona could benefit from the experience in Nebraska and eliminate one chamber of the legislature.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the first regular session of the 51st Arizona Legislature is not going to end anytime soon.
I hope Brewer's got more up her sleeve for leverage than simply putting the veto stamp on a few more bills.
Apparently, it has been more than six months since anyone has heard anything from US District Court Judge Paul Rosenblatt in the matter of the Arizona Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, case number CV-12-01211-PHX-PGR.
The Arizona Legislature (actually, the GOP leadership), realizing they were unable to control the AIRC in 2011 like they did in 2001 (with chair Steve Lynn) complained to the court that:
The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution delegates the authority over the redistricting of congressional districts to the Legislatures of the States. Contrary to this constitutional delegation, Proposition 106 (adopted in 2000) amended the Arizona Constitution – removing that authority from the Arizona State Legislature (“Legislature”) and vesting it instead with the “Independent Redistricting Commission” (“IRC”). The Legislature brings this action requesting the Court to a) declare that Proposition 106 is unconstitutional to the extent it removes congressional-redistricting authority from the Legislature, b) declare that the congressional district maps adopted by the IRC are unconstitutional, and c) enjoin the Defendants from enforcing or implementing any congressional redistricting plan from the IRC beginning the day after the 2012 congressional election is held in Arizona.
You see Judge, those damned voters in Arizona took away our toys. Redistricting isn't supposed to be done by the PEOPLE, but by US, the anointed... er, elected representatives, since WE obviously KNOW BETTER than the people.
Well, Judge Rosenblatt apparently has not considered the matter to be nearly as urgent as Andys Biggs and Tobin and their caucuses. Pursuant to local Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties, not hearing anything for six months, are allowed to politely nudge the judge to remind him of the matter before him.
Therefore, today the parties filed a Joint Notice, the entire text of which reads,
Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(l), it has been more than 180 days since the parties have fully briefed: (1) AIRC Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2012 Order Granting plaintiff’s Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Statutory Court filed June 27, 2012; and
(2) Defendants Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Commissioners Mathis, McNulty, Herrera, Freeman, and Stertz’s Motion to Dismiss filed August 10, 2012, for which oral argument has been requested. Therefore, the attorneys of record in this matter respectfully inquire as to the status of each matter.
By the way, the AIRC filed a reply to the Legislature's complaint. Of course, the AIRC position is that the vote of the people of Arizona is the final word.
When Judge Rosenblatt makes any ruling or sets a date for any hearing, I'll let you know.
Why would an Independent Expenditure Committee (Arizona 2014) be mailing out a pro Catherine Miranda 6" x 11" flyer now? Particularly when the IE is chaired by Max Fose (a max donor to Tom Horne)? [pun not necessarily intended]
To understand this situation, it seems we need to understand who Max Fose is. On Tom Horne's campaign finance report, with Fose's $840 contribution to the oh, so honest and non-partisan Arizona Attorney General (I jest, we all know that Horne is neither honest nor non-partisan), Fose disclosed his occupation as: President, Integrated Web Strategy. Colin Shipley**, IWS Director of Public Affairs is listed on the Secretary of State's record as campaign treasurer. On the IWS website, Shipley is said to have previously served as political director for the Arizona Republican Party and as Community Relations Manager for Jan Brewer as well as having worked for High Ground.
High Ground, you may recall, is the political consulting firm run by Chuck Coughlin, sometimes on the right side of an issue (Medicaid Restoration) but usually on the wrong side (privatizing prisons in Arizona).
I'm confident there is much more to learn about Max Fose. But why does he suddenly have such great admiration for Catherine Miranda?
-----
A little birdie today shared with me some intriguing insight on this situation.
Of course, right now any conclusions or inferences are speculative, but certain facts are true and known.
First, Fose's IE committee is very new. It formed on May 14, just two weeks ago. Because of its newness, we do not have access to any financial disclosure reports. Therefore, we do not know who paid Fose's committee to blow smoke up Rep. Miranda's skirt. And we do not know how much the mailer cost.
The little birdie told me that the mailer likely is thanks for her taking the lead in organizing a faction of five Hispanic members of the Arizona House Democratic caucus. Those five Democrats broke from the caucus to vote with House Republicans to seal legislative approval of HB 2485 Health and Safety Audit Privilege. The final House vote was 40-19. Other than Miranda's faction, the rest of the Democratic Caucus remained unified.
Last year's bill added a new article to ARS Title 49 (Environment). This year's bill, putting much the same language in the statutes on court procedure apparently closes what some people must have believed was a loophole that could have been used to hold corporations accountable for harm they cause damaging the environment.
Both bills (the 2012 HB2199 and the 2013 HB2485) appear to be very close to the language and provisions in ALEC model legislation from 1996 (Thanks VERY much to Tucson activist Lisa Hoffman for the ALEC research).
Here's a clip from the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing in which HB2485 was aired. Local attorney Richard Langerman testified on behalf of the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association against the bill. He succinctly sets forth the reasons the bill is problematic for Arizona citizens.
Before taking questions from committee members, Langerman summed up his testimony by saying,
APS (Arizona Public Service) is behind this bill. And the question is, what is it that they are trying to hide? They haven't told us the answer to that question, no matter how many times we've asked. And until we know why we're doing this, we urge you to vote no on Representative Carter's bill and protect Arizona citizens, the people you represent.
Apparently, APS was not the least bit coy about pushing this particular bill. Captain Al Melvin, chairman of the (ironically named?) Senate Public Safety committee, gave a clue right at the start when he asked if this bill applied only to Palo Verde (Nuclear Generating Station).
Folks, WHY is Arizona giving the operator of the largest nuclear facility in the nation the statutory right to hide health and safety problems? Has it been so long since Fukushima that we no longer are aware of the inherent risk of catastrophe? Does ANYONE at the state capitol realize how close Palo Verde is to Phoenix? The nation's sixth largest metropolitan area (in population, according to the 2010 census) is downwind only about 45 miles.
If there is no risk at Palo Verde, WTF are they in such a hurry to hide? If APS (which operates Palo Verde) is afraid to take stronger measures to prevent disasters (like Tepco admittedly was), doesn't that more realistically raise the urgency sky high for converting Arizona to genuinely renewable energy sources?
It might seem quaint just to say it, but when there's a SOLAR energy SPILL, isn't that just a typical Arizona nice day?
-----
Back to the final vote in the Arizona House on HB 2485. Reportedly, mention was made during the House Democratic Caucus meeting on this bill that it was, in fact, ALEC model legislation. Why, then, would Miranda, Lydia Hernandez (this is NOT Lydia Guzman*), Lupe Contreras, Juan Carlos Escamilla and Mark Cardenas all vote Aye on the bill?
I cannot definitively answer that question. But I can clearly point to this situation as an example of what I described about two weeks ago in reporting on the effort made to keep the Senate Democratic Caucus unified.
There IS speculation as to whom those other Democratic votes might be. Right now, I don't know enough to name them, but traditionally, legislative Republicans have been able to obtain support from members from Northeast Arizona in exchange for appropriations to build special projects on the Navajo and/or Hopi Reservations. I do NOT know who Biggs is trying to buy right now, so, I am not calling out Senator Jackson.
This is only an example. In the 1990s, I saw it work like this, when I served as an accountant with the Arizona Department of Economic Security. The special appropriations were funneled through that agency in several fiscal years.
We do know that this HB2485 was pushed aggressively by Arizona Public Service. We also know that at the recent Heritage Dinner, an Arizona Democratic Party fundraiser, Catherine Miranda and Sen. Robert Meza (D-LD30) sat with the delegation (lobbyists) from Arizona Public Service. Meza was one of only two senate Democrats voting Aye on HB2485.
The only dot we are unable to connect at this time between Miranda and APS has to do with who provided the funding for the mailer Max Fose sent out buttering her up.
By the way, didn't APS make a big deal about ending its association with ALEC a year or so ago? So much for that.
We are left to ponder the question of why Catherine Miranda is cozying up to Arizona Public Service and ALEC?
Another fact, likely related, is that Rep. Miranda has already established a committee "to explore" running for the seat now held by term-limited Senate Minority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor. Don't let yourself be fooled, is it at all possible that -- after Fose's group sent out such a strong message of support for her -- Miranda could find fault with any position APS, Fose, or whoever was responsible for it will want pushed through the House this year and next, and the Senate after that?
Any lawmaker or candidate will tell you she or he "cannot be bought" so easily. The only thing that really means is that the lawmaker is not fully aware of the strength of the invisible chain the Big Money interest has put around them. Did Ben Arredondo or Richard Miranda (Catherine's brother-in-law) -- both of whom were recently convicted of corruption related charges -- believe they could not be so easily bought?
Would it be reasonable to infer that this was a pre-emptive strike hoping to prevent anyone from challenging Miranda in a Democratic primary in 2014 when she runs for the Senate? Could it have been anything but?
There are a number of issues tied into this situation. One of which illustrates the difficulty that House leaders on both sides of the aisle will have in getting a budget passed that includes Medicaid Restoration. There are, after all, twice as many members in the House as in the Senate. Speaker Andy Tobin and Minority Leader Chad Campbell probably feel like their jobs right now can easily compared to herding cats.
-----
UPDATE
Apparently, this situation has been building up like the water behind a dam. Now that the dam has been breached, the information just keeps wanting to pour over it. So, this looks to be something about which more details will be forthcoming.
Thus far, we know that there were questions about Catherine Miranda's nominating petitions and documents involved in her requests for Clean Elections funding in 2012.
Additionally, the entire concept of Independent Expenditures excludes coordination between the candidate and the group paying for the particular campaign piece, in this case, the mailer. However, the picture on the mailer may be the very same picture used by Ms. Miranda on her 2012 campaign signs. If that is the case, how did Fose obtain the picture?
Though it's only guilt by association, but ALEC documents show that Miranda's now convicted brother-in-law was, in fact a MEMBER of ALEC. On page 55 of a June 30, 2011 ALEC memo, Richard Miranda is listed as a member of the Public Safety and Elections Task Force.
LATER UPDATE Heard around the Capitol this afternoon that utility interests (like APS) are pushing hard for Brewer's TPT (transaction privilege tax) reform bill and that Miranda's faction of rogue Democrats are said to be willing to trade their votes on it in exchange for mailers like was sent out this week for her (Miranda).
Of course, it's possible this is just an empty rumor. The rogue Dems certainly can prove the rumor false by declaring their support for cities and towns who, as the TPT bill stands now are likely to see serious negative ramifications.
-----
* NOTE -- Lydia Guzman is an outspoken advocate for justice and takes bold stands to do the right thing for all people. Guzman testified against Sheriff Arpaio in the civil case ruled on last week by federal Judge G. Murray Snow. She does NOT currently hold elected office. Lydia Hernandez apparently sometimes allows people to think she's Guzman. That, of course, is not a good thing.
** NOTE 2 -- I just learned that Arizona 2014 treasurer is apparently also former Republican Governor Jane Dee Hull's grandson.
Hopefully, by now you are well aware of Move to Amend, to codify in the United States Constitution the effort to overturn, or nullify, the Citizens United ruling issued by the Supreme Court in January 2010. Last week, Ashley Sanders spoke at several events in Arizona about Move to Amend. Her speech before a small crowd in Phoenix was recorded on video. When the video becomes available, I plan to post it here for you.
Today, however, I call your attention to the American Anti-Corruption Act which I'd like to ask you to support, as I do.
When you visit the website to learn more about the Act, you will notice that support at this early stage of the process already includes people from a wide range of backgrounds. Those include Trevor Potter (former Federal Elections Commission chairman), along with a GOP strategist, a leader of Occupy Los Angeles, an investment banker, a Tea Party leader and hundreds (of thousands) of others.
Key provisions of the Act include:
Stop politicians from taking bribes
Limit super PAC contributions and “coordination”
Prevent job offers as bribes
Call all people who lobby, lobbyists
Limit lobbyist donations
End secret money
Empower all voters with a tax rebate
Disclose “bundling”
Enforce the rules
There's a plan (which starts with the American people, not Congress). The Act has been carefully crafted and analyzed by Constitutional scholars and attorneys.
Attorney Clint Bolick, who serves as Director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, has been critical of Maricopa County's nativist sheriff, Joseph Arpaio, for a long time. In the video clip below, of Arpaio's failure to investigate more than 400 sex abuse cases, Bolick declares, "This is one of the greatest failures of law enforcement I've ever seen."
So, I asked Bolick today whether he has made any public statements about US District Court Judge G. Murray Snow's ruling Friday against Arpaio? I also asked him if he supports the recall effort? Bolick replied,
No I haven't. Our focus has been on different issues. I had not supported the recall previously because he had just been elected and there was nothing new on which to base a recall. But this ruling certainly provides a basis.
GI [Goldwater Institute] rules prohibit staff from being formally involved in election campaigns. But I will sign a petition and let folks know I have done so. (emphasis mine)
The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office is responsible for vitally important law-enforcement functions in one of the largest counties in the nation. It defines its core missions as law-enforcement services, support services, and detention.
MCSO falls seriously short of fulfilling its mission in all three areas. Although MCSO is adept at self-promotion and is an unquestionably tough law-enforcement agency, under its watch violent crime rates recently have soared, both in absolute terms and relative to other jurisdictions. It has diverted resources away from basic law-enforcement functions to highly publicized immigration sweeps, which are ineffective in policing illegal immigration and in reducing crime generally, and to extensive trips by MCSO officials to Honduras for purposes that are nebulous at best. Profligate spending on those diversions helped produce a financial crisis in late 2007 that forced MCSO to curtail or reduce important law-enforcement functions.
Bolick's perspective on the recall is certainly notable. I hope that conservative leaning voters in Maricopa County will consider it, go beyond simply echoing standard nativist talking points and join in the recall effort by signing a petition in the next few days.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Photo credit AP/Ross Franklin
State Rep. Steve Smith* (Pharisee, LD11) on Wednesday -- perhaps without even thinking about the content of the secular invocation delivered at the start of Tuesday's floor session in the Arizona House of Representatives -- declared that Rep. Juan Mendez had offended God. And he got national attention for doing so.
That day therefore, Smith offered a prayer in repentance.
At Wednesday's session, Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, lit into Mendez, saying if Mendez did not want to offer a prayer, he should have skipped his turn in the traditional rotation among members.
To make up for Mendez's omission, Smith insisted Wednesday on offering a second prayer to start the session, on the heels of the one led by Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, whose turn it was.
Smith's prayer was offered, "for repentance of yesterday," and asked colleagues to stand and "give our due respect to the Creator of the universe."
The flap comes as the U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this week to weigh in on the larger question of whether it is even proper to offer prayers at the start of public meetings.
You may ask, why does what Smith did bother me? Here's a little bit of my personal history. Born into a blue-collar Italian Catholic family in Rochester, NY, as a young adult I explored other Christian groups and traditions, spending 12 years in what I considered (at the time) dedicated study of the Bible.
Today, I do not attend a church but remain close friends with a number of people from that religious time in my life. I had grown weary of people who did not seem to walk the walk along with talking the talk.
I certainly am not holier than Steve Smith. But just as certainly, I do not identify with his brand of Christianity.
So, what was Smith complaining about on Wednesday anyway?
Having known Juan for a couple of years now, I happily worked with other LD26 activists to get him elected (along with Andrew Sherwood in the House and Ed Albeser in the Senate) in the 2012 general election. Since he represents me faithfully (in terms of public policy) in the Arizona House, I am thankful and proud of him.
A couple of months ago, after "sharing" one of those poignant and pithy sayings on Facebook -- one that just happened to come from a group having something to do with atheism -- a friend, a Christian I have known for more than 30 years, asked me pointedly if I was still a Christian. Perhaps a reasonable question. From a person I still very much consider a friend. But for some reason, it made me uncomfortable. So much so that I still remember it a few months later.
To this friend, I responded by disclaiming any connection to the group from which the saying had come while emphasizing that I appreciated the message it conveyed nevertheless.
But why should it even matter?
-----
Back in the early days of our Republic, Thomas Paine wrote some incredibly provocative pamphlets. If not for Paine's Common Sense, the Founders might never have declared independence from the British Crown. However, Paine was not satisfied only with forming a new nation in which all of the rights spelled out in the Constitution applied only to roughly 8 percent of the people.
Over the course of the rest of his life, Paine wrote other essays that challenged the foundations upon which the United States of America were initially formed. Firmly opposed to slavery from the beginning, Paine penned the Rights of Man. Agrarian Justice, first published in 1795 was the initial blueprint for development of what we now know as Social Security.
The pamphlet that earned Paine the most contempt may have been Age of Reason. In it, Paine strikes at the heart of what he believed dominated religion in his day -- superstition. The essay begins:
TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.
In my opinion, Paine's writings provided the fuel, or rational underpinning for massive changes in American society and all of Western Civilization. His influence may have reached even farther, but I am not familiar with other societies. Paine considered himself a Deist. From the Age of Reason:
The circumstance that has now taken place in France of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.
As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
And in this declaration and in spelling out those things which he did not believe -- with his reasons -- one of the most influential writers (maybe THE most influential) of his day, quite literally became persona non grata in much of the world he knew. From wikipedia:
At the time of his death, most American newspapers reprinted the obituary notice from the New York Citizen, which read in part: "He had lived long, did some good and much harm." Only six mourners came to his funeral, two of whom were black, most likely freedmen. The writer and orator Robert G. Ingersoll wrote:
Thomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life. One by one most of his old friends and acquaintances had deserted him. Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned and abhorred – his virtues denounced as vices – his services forgotten – his character blackened, he preserved the poise and balance of his soul. He was a victim of the people, but his convictions remained unshaken. He was still a soldier in the army of freedom, and still tried to enlighten and civilize those who were impatiently waiting for his death. Even those who loved their enemies hated him, their friend – the friend of the whole world – with all their hearts. On the 8th of June, 1809, death came – Death, almost his only friend. At his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession, no military display. In a carriage, a woman and her son who had lived on the bounty of the dead – on horseback, a Quaker, the humanity of whose heart dominated the creed of his head – and, following on foot, two negroes filled with gratitude – constituted the funeral cortege of Thomas Paine.
-----
Back to the issue of my religious tradition(s). Though I very strongly have identified and fellowshipped with Christians and Christian groups for many years, I currently am quite comfortable also considering myself Deist. Of course, I don't hang out with or engage in activities or projects focused on Deism. But I have come to realize and recognize that there is so much outside of what any human can perceive or know.
The Bible still holds important insights on many things for me. Most importantly at this point in my life and in our society, that book does not even come close to meaning what Pharisee-like ministers of the Religious Right claim it means. I do not see a vengeful God looking to punish anyone who refuses to toe the line.
On the other hand, stories in the Old Testament and New expose hypocrisy of small-minded preachers and politicians... like Steve Smith.
Though I long ago ended all association with the Roman Catholic Church, I have to appreciate the new Pope. Francis I on Wednesday (is there such a thing as coincidence?) -- the same day Steve Smith demonstrated his small-minded religiosity -- as reported by USA Today:
Atheists and other nonbelievers largely welcomed Wednesday's (May 22) remarks by Pope Francis that performing "good works" is not the exclusive domain of people of faith, but rather a place where they and atheists could and should meet.
In a private homily, Francis described doing good not as a matter of faith, but of "duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because he has made us in his image and likeness."
Then, referring to non-Catholics and nonbelievers, he said, "if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good."
As to Steve Smith, I can't know what goes on between his ears, but what I can see from his words and deeds, he doesn't seem to represent his God very well.
By the way, what is the key question and did anyone pose it to Smith?
What would Jesus do?
Again, I might be presumptuous to predict an answer, but I can point to some related things Jesus said, as recorded in the Gospels.
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a]38 This is the first and greatest commandment.39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 7:1-5 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
And how about this one? It can be a tricky one for sure. Because if the reader forgets the lesson in Matthew 7, he (Steve Smith) might be inclined to use it to judge Juan Mendez, rather than himself.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 13 Now all has been heard;here is the conclusion of the matter:Fear God and keep his commandments,for this is the duty of all mankind. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
Oh, and a bit more insight on just who were the Pharisees and why is Steve Smith like one of them.
A politico-religious sect or faction among the adherents of later Judaism, that came into existence as a class about the third century B.C. After the exile, Israel's monarchial form of government had become a thing of the past; in its place the Jews created a community which was half State, half Church. A growing sense of superiority to the heathen and idolatrous nations among whom their lot was cast came to be one of their main characteristics. They were taught insistently to separate themselves from their neighbors. (emphasis mine)
Can you say, "Build the dang fence?"
My hunch is that Steve Smith has plenty in his own life that he would do well to get right with his God. I don't think he has legitimate standing to tell me that what my state Representative said when offering the daily invocation was improper. And from what I see, even if Smith didn't give much thought to Mendez' words, a whole lot of other people did and find them full of wisdom that believers and non-believers can and should agree on.
-----
*Note that prior to redistricting, which took effect for the November 2012 election, Smith served in the state Senate from LD23.
