Let's look at the budget ... shall we?

In my previous blog, I hammered the process used by AZ Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP-controlled legislature.  Now, let's look at the budget itself.  The best article on the subject comes from the Tucson Weekly.  It's clear, very understandable and doesn't contain all the gobbledegook that causes eye strain.  To read it ... click here.  Full credit goes to writer Jim Nintzel and any other Tucson Weekly writer who may have contributed to the article.

I'm going to boil Nintzel's article down to an even more concise overview of Ducey's budget ... the budget he rammed down our throats in the wee hours of the morning, without the "transparency" he so promised in his election campaign.

• Education was nailed left and right, top to bottom, with nearly $100 million coming just from the three state universities.  Even some top conservatives are critical of what Ducey and his minions have done.  What will the monstrous cuts to education do to this state?  I'm going to let you think about it for a bit - and make sure to include Arizona's economy when you do your thinking.
• The Social Safety Net in AZ - whack!!  Remember the big stink when lawmakers discovered that several thousand reports of child abuse had not been investigated?  Remember when former Gov. Jan Brewer created a new agency to handle all that?  Well ... Ducey and the GOP yanked $11 million from that new agency.  Now we know how the governor feels about Arizona children.  Of course, they can't vote.  Many other social safety net programs were slashed, too, leaving many Arizona families ... where?  I can't even imagine.
• Cities and counties will have to pick up the tab.  Hey ... if state funding to cities and counties is reduced, who do you think will have to pay the bill?  Oh ... that's right.  YOU will pay the bill in higher county/city/town fees, fines, and taxes.
• Prisons and prison operators are cheering!  They got a whopping increase of about $39 million.  Perhaps Ducey knows he has to prepare for more prison space due to his cuts to education?  Now that is forward thinking!
• More tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.  Well, come on ... you shouldn't be surprised.  Ducey campaigned on that!  It's simple math.  If you cut taxes, you cut the money coming in to pay for state government.  From the Tucson Weekly article:  "... the Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimates that in fiscal year 2017, they [tax cuts] will cost $190 million more than in the current year, and in the following year, they will cost $267 million more than the current year."  Wow ... want to guess what future Republican budgets will look like?
• Democrats were left out of the process!  Okay, one Democrat voted for the budget, but he got a nice chunk of change for a project in his district.  Let's put it this way:  If you were opposed to this budget, you were not represented in the process because your representatives or senator were not included in the process.  

In a prepared statement, Ducey said,  "This is the job Arizonans hired us for, and I'm proud we were able to get it done in a responsible, swift and bipartisan manner."

Three lies in one sentence!  1) No, Arizona didn't hire you to gut education and social safety net programs and we didn't hire you to keep ignoring the middle class and the poor.  2) This budget was not created through responsible governing because the future of Arizona has been ignored.  3) Bipartisan - that's a laugh.

The only truth to Ducey's statement is that the process was swift.  

The ramifications of his work, however, will last a very, very, very long time.

Governing? I don't think so!

Recently, Arizona saw a great example of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.  

Let me rephrase that:  Arizona saw the result of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.

Okay, let me try again:  Arizona will soon experience the result of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.

I'm talking about the recently-passed Arizona State Budget, a document that stipulates how $9.1 billion will be spent in the next fiscal year.  I can't give details because 1) I don't have them, 2) I wouldn't understand much of it.  

Of course, when it was passed in the wee hours of the morning, some lawmakers hadn't had enough time to really read it and understand all the complexities involved in the document, either.

Let me talk, instead, about how Arizona's GOP governor and legislative leadership worked to get the budget passed in both chambers.  They worked, part of the time, behind closed doors.  This, from a governor who promised "transparency" in his administration.  Uh, huh.  And you know something? We'll never know the full story about the deals that were struck - and the threats made - in an effort to get the governor's budget passed!

But let me make some guesses.  And since I wasn't at the State Capitol when the budget was being discussed, and certainly didn't have any video cams or tape recorders set up, these are guesses.  However ... my suppositions are based on many years covering the Arizona State Legislature in the news media.  I know how it works because I've seen it first hand.

I'll bet the governor met with the GOP leadership of both chambers ... he outlined what he (and his campaign contributors) wanted and they hashed out a few details, coming up with a budget they thought would fly.  And since the GOP controls the House and Senate, this just might be a slam dunk!  Whoopee! 

But there was a problem, you see.  Not all Republicans liked the drastic cuts to education ... and hundreds of pesky constituents showed up at the State Capitol - twice - to protest those cuts.  They also emailed, sent faxes and made phone calls voicing opposition to the budget bill. Those silly soccer moms, teachers, administrators and college students just might actually show up to vote in 2016 when all 90 Arizona legislative seats are up for grabs!

That, according to my script, is when the deals were made.  And maybe some threats, too.  Enter the Majority Whip, stage right.

The Majority Whip is the "enforcer," who typically offers inducements and threatens party members to ensure that they vote according to the official party line. A whip's role is also to ensure that the elected representatives of their party are in attendance when important votes are taken - or to make sure lawmakers stay home if they don't want to play ball.

Here are some of the tactics that the whip and the majority leader (and many times even the governor) will use in order to get the "right" votes from their party members.  And I'll bet you they were used in spades as the GOP rounded up enough votes to pass the Arizona budget bill: 

+ Vote the way we want you to vote or your bills/special projects will never see the light of day.  We will bury them! 
+ Want party campaign money to help you get re-elected?  Vote our way or get nothing! 
+ If you vote our way, then your district will get that special funding you want.  Your fault if the money doesn't come your way! 
+ Still don't want to do it our way?  Then just get sick and stay home so your vote won't hurt us.  Otherwise, you'll pay in some way down the line!  

Do I know this went on at the State Capitol before the budget vote?  No.  Did it probably happen?  Yes.  Why?  Because it's happened before and it will happen again (especially since outside money is playing a huge role in Arizona elections).

This is not governing.  Governing is making sure everyone is heard - and that all of us are represented.  My two representatives and one senator are all Democrats.  Basically, they were left out of the process so I was left out of the process!  Most Arizonans had no voice in those closed-door sessions and the deal-making.

Governing is talking, debating, compromising, listening, and making sure everyone is given the opportunity to participate in the process so that democratic representation truly takes place.  But that didn't happen with regard to the budget.  The self-imposed time line was so short that it was difficult for all the lawmakers to even read the amendments, let alone discuss/debate them!  But you see, the Republicans had to move fast in order to shut down more protests from regular folks like you and me.

Yes ... Arizonans will soon experience the result of political maneuvering, manipulation and intimidation.  I hope they remember that in 2016.

Trickle down ... or trickle out?

Ronald Regan's "Trickle Down Theory" of economics (sometimes called "supply-side") goes like this:  If the rich and corporations do well, benefits will "trickle down" to the rest. So ... lower taxes on high income individuals or big business will benefit most of the population because all that money saved through lower taxes will trickle down to everyone else.  

I'm certainly not an economist (and don't even pretend to be), but my response has to be: HOGWASH!  You don't have to be an economist to have some common sense! Common sense and history make it clear that "supply-side" economics just doesn't work; it's "demand-side" economics that moves the economy.  A friend posted the best explanation of that today and I'm going to take from his explanation and then add some to it.

Let's say it takes five people to run the ABC Widget Company.  Only five.  Now let's say the state legislature - or Congress - reduces the taxes that must be paid by the company.  Nice tax break! According to the trickle down theory, ABC Widget Co. will take that tax savings and hire more people. The problem is that ABC Widget Co. doesn't need more people!  Why in the world would the tax savings be used to hire people that simply aren't needed?

Here's what really happens:  The CEO of the ABC Widget Co. will get a nice bonus ... and maybe even some jobs will end up in India.  The tax savings trickled out instead of trickling down.  You didn't benefit and neither did I.  The economy didn't benefit, either.

The company WILL hire more people, though, if they need to produce more widgets!  And that will happen only if people are buying more widgets (demand!) ... which means consumers need to have enough money to buy the product.  

Consumer spending > Corporate profits > Corporate hiring/raises > More consumer spending > Continue the cycle

Yes, there's more to it than my extremely simple timeline ... I know that.  But those ARE the basics.  Tell me how "trickle down" fits anywhere in that timeline.  It's supposed to and the concept is a fine idea, but in reality, it just doesn't happen - and history proves that.

Let's look at recent history, shall we?  Kansas governor, Sam Brownback, promised that his state would be the Republican Model so he and the tea-party lawmakers enacted a whole bunch of really deep tax cuts, right in line with the Republican playbook.  Business got huge tax cuts, the wealthy got really nice cuts, middle class and poor folks got cuts not worth mentioning because the percentage is so low.  Brownback called it a "pro-growth tax policy."  Hmmmm ... so .... what did happen?  Here's a partial list:

• Kansas trails the nation in job growth.
• No rainy day fund left - Kansas now in huge deficit.
• After just two years -  revenue shortfall of $338 million.
• Revenue even lower than the worst predictions.
• School budgets never recovered and Brownback demands even more education cuts.
• Healthcare, assistance for the poor, courts, and other state services being eviscerated.

 Brownback keeps promising economic growth, but it's not happening.  In California, though, there's a different picture.  In the middle of the recession, Gov. Jerry Brown pushed for tax increases in order to preserve the quality of state services.  Result?  California's job growth since then has left Kansas - and the country as a whole - in the dust. 

The next time a Republican talks about the benefits of trickle down or supply-side economics, ask for evidence that it works - or has worked - to improve the economy.  Then watch the stammering begin.

Yes, you ARE responsible!

Just today, I posted a link to a story about a Republican woman in Missouri who wants to be that state's next governor.  She's already the House Speaker.  She made sure to demonize women with about everything she said, including providing a "connection" between single moms and child pornography. In other words ... another Republican extremist.  Read the story yourself here.

Within an hour of posting that story, four of my Republican friends sent me private messages saying that woman does NOT speak for them.  Two of those friends even said they are not responsible for what the GOP extremists say and do.

I beg to differ.  Moderate, rational Republicans are most definitely responsible for putting the extremists in office!  And they are the only ones who can restore the GOP to the "big tent party" where differing views are welcome and rational thought is the norm.

Before I explain exactly why my moderate Republican friends are responsible for the extremists, here are a few other comments made by GOP lawmakers at the state and federal levels.

•  “In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out.”  ~Texas State Senator Jodie Laubenberg, an ignorant claim that rape kits are used to abort a pregnancy (June, 2013)
•  Human-caused global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" ~Sen. James Inhofe (OK) as he cited the Bible to defend his position
• "... I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you." ~Rick Santorum, presidential candidate, explaining that rape is a gift from God (January, 2012)
•  "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!"~Herman Cain, presidential candidate
• “I would not compromise my principles for politics. You’re saying, will it become politically unpopular to have the position I’m having? If it does, so be it. I don’t compromise my principles for politics.” ~NJ Governor Chris Christie explaining why he continues to oppose marriage equality
• “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” ~Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock who also thinks God causes rape (October, 2012)
• “Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low. But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.” ~Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, claiming that getting pregnant through rape is rare therefore there shouldn’t be any exceptions for rape victims in anti-abortion bills (June, 2013)
• Life begins "from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman." ~Former Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer - who needs to take a biology class, pure and simple

Many of the above quotes went hand-in-hand with the monstrous number of anti-choice bills introduced by Republicans in Congress and state legislatures.  This, of course, from the party that purports to keep government out of your life.  Uh, huh.  But they are getting elected, and my moderate Republican friends say they are NOT responsible.  That's where my friends are wrong.

They may not like the radical Republicans on the ballot but they WILL vote for them simply because of the "R" behind the candidate's name!  To vote for a Democrat would surely send them straight to hell, don't ya know!  So, they will knowingly vote for a Republican who believes the United States is a "Christian" nation ... a candidate who wants to ban contraception for religious reasons ... a candidate who is so anti-women that you wonder who brought them into the world ... a candidate who has no problems supporting - and voting for - legislation that makes it legal to discriminate against certain groups of people ... a candidate who wants to make Christian prayer mandatory in public schools. 

It's so simple.  If my moderate, rational Republican friends don't like the extremists in office, they must vote them out.  And that means voting for the other candidate.  Trust me ... you will survive with a Democrat (or 3rd party individual) in office for two or four or six years.  In the meantime, you will have sent the Republican Party a very strong message:  we will NOT tolerate being represented by the radicals any longer!

So, please ... don't tell me you aren't responsible for the extreme right-wing lawmakers now in office.  YOU put them there.

Impeach? What charges?

It appears Republicans in the House of Representatives want to impeach President Obama, despite the fact that their fearless leader, John Boehner, has expressed no interest in doing so.  But those Republicans don't need Boehner; they can do it on their own.

Most people truly don't understand the concept of impeachment.  So let's take a look, shall we?  Impeachment is a political process; it is not a criminal process.  Impeachment is set up in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The House of Representatives must file official impeachment charges (Articles of Impeachment). The U.S. Senate then hears evidence in the impeachment trial and acts as the jury, deciding whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.  A 2/3 vote of the Senate is needed for conviction.

All those Republicans calling for impeaching President Obama have yet to identify specific charges.  Just what are the "high crimes" and "misdemeanors?"  The charges in the Articles of Impeachment must be specific.

Oh, those House Republicans get their knickers in a bunch every time the president opens his mouth.  And they point to controversies, rather than high crimes or misdemeanors, as a reason to impeach.   Example:  the mishandling of the way the ACA was rolled out ... all the computer problems and delays.  Oh, pleeeeaaasseee ... that's a high crime or misdemeanor?  Treason?  Bribery?  No ... that was a government snafu and we see those every single day at some level.

Okay, how about the current crisis involving children from Central America entering the United States illegally?  Those patriotic Republicans say President Obama's handling of the situation (not immediately dumping those children back across the border) is treason!  Well, no, it's not.  The president is simply following the law!

Just before leaving office, on Dec. 23, 2008, George W. Bush signed into law the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The law describes exactly how unaccompanied children crossing the border must be treated. 

• For children coming from Mexico and Canada, countries with a border with the United States, a Border Patrol officer has the authority to determine whether the child is eligible to stay in the country. And because the child can be easily handed over to officials from his or her home country, the process can move very quickly.
• But for children from Central America, where handing them back to authorities is more complicated, the law dictates that Customs and Border Patrol must turn undocumented children over to the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours.
• HHS will then hold them humanely until they can be released to a “suitable family member” in the United States.

So ... let's impeach the president for following the law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by a Republican president?  You just have to laugh.

Be prepared.  House Republicans will come up with something.  And they will fail.  And the rest of us will shake our heads at the time wasted - and the taxpayer money spent - on just the latest "nail this president" effort.

It's really RELIGIOUS COMPULSION!

Over the last few weeks, we have been inundated with "religious freedom" legislation and/or conduct.  However, it should actually be called "religious compulsion" because that's what it really is.

Consider Hobby Lobby, that wondrous store based on religious principles - that according to the owners, of course. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today. Hobby Lobby doesn't want the Affordable Care Act to force them to provide employee health insurance that includes contraception coverage.  In other words, Hobby Lobby owners believe they should make medical decisions for their employees ... based on their religious beliefs.  If the SCOTUS decision favors the oh-so pious Hobby Lobby owners, that will open the floodgates.  How about denying insurance coverage for blood transfusions?  Immunizations?

Do you want YOUR employer making medical decisions for you based on his/her religion?  That would be religious compulsion.

Weeks ago, Arizona's GOP-controlled legislature passed a bill that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against anyone as long as that discrimination was based on religious beliefs.  Of course, these oh-so wise lawmakers didn't really think it through.  How about a Jewish deli that would have been able to deny service to Christians?  Or a boutique owned by a straight woman that would have been able to deny entrance to lesbians? (Actually, we all know that this last example is exactly what the legislature had in mind.)  Fortunately, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed this obnoxious legislation ... but the Christian right group that wrote the bill is already planning a comeback for next year.

The question you should probably ask yourself:  When might I  be the target of discrimination based on religious belief?  You know, you could ... depending on who you are.  Again, religious compulsion.

Now let's take a little trip to that oh-so tolerant state of Tennessee.  Again (what a coincidence!) the legislature is controlled by Republicans.  The House and Senate sent a bill to the Governor's desk that would allow students to use religion in any manner they choose.  And, guess what ... that includes bullying.  These lawmakers are on a religious mission and to hell with anyone who is the target of bigotry and hatred.  They want to protect religious freedom, don't you know!  Of course, just like the Republican legislators in Arizona, they didn't think this through to the end.  But then, that's nothing new.

This Tennessee abomination will also force students of all beliefs to be subjected to the proselytizing by Christians ... that's really the group the legislature wants to protect because what do you think will happen when a Muslim student gets up and starts quoting from the Qur'an? He'll be suspended in a heartbeat and you know it.

The religious right - masked as thinking Republican lawmakers - are calling their actions "religious freedom" yet it's anything but freedom.  It's religious compulsion.

com·pul·sion

noun: compulsion; plural noun: compulsions

1.

the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.

Hobby Lobby wants all its employees forced into abiding by the owners' religious beliefs.  Arizona lawmakers wanted to allow discrimination based on religious beliefs - the underlying belief being Christian - and if you don't conform, oh, well.  The state of Tennessee wants to allow students do behave any damn way they choose, based on religious beliefs and that forces all students to fall under the Christian thumb.

This kind of reminds me of a Sunday School song I learned long, long ago.  The chorus goes like this:

This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.
Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

 In the above cases, the light is shining bright ... on the bigotry and hatred running rampant throughout this country.  The attempt to hide it under the guise of "religious freedom" is a huge FAIL because most of us see it for what it is.

It's religious compulsion and it needs to stop.  The only way it will stop is at the ballot box.  It does no good to complain and then go vote Republican simply because you are a registered Republican.  You need to ask yourself if you want to be the target one day (and that could well happen). If the answer is no, then do us all a favor and vote against the GOP candidates ... or just stay home on election day.  We'll all be better off for sure.

Phyllis Schlafly quotes

I really had forgotten all about Phyllis Schlafly.  Truly, she hasn't entered my consciousness for years and years.  Until today.

Schlafly said, "many Americans" are protesting the wave toward marriage equality by dissenting with their feet.  She said they are "moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between one man and one woman."  Of course, Schlafly provides no evidence to support her claim.  Are you surprised?

In any case, I remembered a few of the wondrous things espoused by Schlafly.  If you're my age, you will nod your head ... if you are younger, this is your opportunity to get a glimpse into this woman's thinking.  Here are a few Schlafly quotes:

"Sex-education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions."

[Evidently she hasn't viewed the statistics that demonstrate comprehensive sex-ed classes reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.]

"Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women."

[Most every woman has experienced some form of sexual harassment on the job whether Schlafly admits it or not.]
  
"Feminism is doomed to failure because it is based on an attempt to repeal and restructure human nature."

[Feminism is based on equality.  Perhaps we need to give her a dictionary.]
  
"Birth on U.S. territory has never been an absolute claim to citizenship."

[Perhaps we should also give Schlafly a copy of the U.S. Constitution where Amendment 14, Section 1 declares that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."]

"ERA means abortion funding, means homosexual privileges, means whatever else."

[Here's what the Equal Rights Amendment says:   Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.]

"People think that child-support enforcement benefits children, but it doesn't."

[Schlafly doesn't explain this piece of wisdom, but in my view child-support, thus child-support enforcement most certainly helps children.]
  
"After Big Media, U.S. colleges and universities are the biggest enemies of the values of red-state Americans."

[I assume that means that red-state/conservative state values don't include an education or the critical thinking skills and economic skills needed to support families and continue our nation's prosperity.  Perhaps that's why the stats show that the poorest states are the red states?]

"Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be."

[I have yet to meet a feminist female who wanted to be a man or said she wanted to be a man.  We are very happy with our gender, Schlafly, but ... now open your ears ... we want equality with men.  Gender equality benefits women and men.]

There are more delightful words from this woman, but I've done enough remembering for one day.

Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/phyllis_schlafly.html#qvceZFztPgzVFOcz.99

Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/phyllis_schlafly.html#qvceZFztPgzVFOcz.99Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions.

claims that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/schlafly-claims-many-americans-moving-out-marriage-equality-states-protest#sthash.1SCCpxH5.dpuf

claims that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/schlafly-claims-many-americans-moving-out-marriage-equality-states-protest#sthash.1SCCpxH5.dpuf