It's Moo-ey That Matters
I'm back to the regular stuff after last week's effort at channeling my "Inner Shecky."
Here's a brief guide to what you can get in the newspaper and what you can't. I get to refer to autistic kids and juvenile probation officers getting screwed or shafted. No problem with offensive language there. However, I can't mention the name and newspaper of the reporter who uncovered the Open Space Reserve Program, Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic. If you want to read her article that disclosed this dubious little piece of pork-on-the-hoof, it's here.
The Budget Battle
RANCHERS PAMPERED AS AUTISTIC KIDS SHAFTED
East Valley Tribune, May 11, 2003
The GOP legislative leadership recently announced their revised budget plan, and once again premature babies, kids, and working parents got screwed. Families with autistic kids still get whacked, and juvenile probation officers would have already-outrageous caseloads increase even more.
We got the usual Republican rigmarole about tough times and tough choices, but once again, the Legislature showed its rather unique set of priorities. Health care and education might seem important to some people, but to GOP legislators, it’s far more important to help hobby ranchers.
What really counts with these guys is cows, not kids.
The latest proof is the Open Space Reserve Program. It’s alt-fuels for cows; call it “alt-fools.” It’s yet more evidence that when Arizona Republicans talk environmental, it’s just cover for giving their buddies public money.
Under this sweetheart deal, the Legislature grabbed 10 percent of the funds to preserve state trust lands voters approved in the Growing Smarter initiative. The money goes to ranchers required to reduce the cattle they graze on leased federal land.
This little boondoggle has several obvious conceptual problems. First, the 1998 initiative got sold to voters as a way to protect state trust land from development. Nobody ever mentioned cash grants to ranchers or preserving federal land. Even if the Legislature’s bait-and-switch is somehow legal (it probably violates the Voter Protection Act), it still stinks.
Second, the only ranchers eligible are those whose leased land is in such bad shape that the feds required herd reductions. If a rancher wants to set an example or voluntarily retire land from grazing, that doesn’t count. The program rewards -- with cash on the barrelhead -- bad land management.
Third, Arizona doesn’t have any program to reduce the number of cattle on state trust land. That’s way too forward-thinking for a hide-bound Legislature that still treats ACGA (the Arizona Cattle Growers Association) as more important than ASU. So paying ranchers this way does nothing for state trust land.
Arizona is groaning under the cost of uncompensated and unfulfilled federal responsibilities. Our hospitals and municipalities are bearing huge costs from the federal government shirking its obligations along the border. So what does the Arizona Legislature do about that? Use state tax money to help preserve federal land. That’ll sure show ‘em in Washington.
But the real outrage lies in the list of recipients of this money. Several dazzlingly wealthy hobby ranchers got state checks to help “preserve” their vacation spreads. Shopping center developers and cosmetics manufacturers pocketed grants of $50,000 or more. Auto dealer Hal Earnhardt corralled some $90,000 for his ranch -- and friends, that ain’t no bull!
Wait, there’s more! GOP House Speaker Jake Flake’s cousin also got $90,000. Was Speaker Flake embarrassed about a relative going on the ranching dole? “Boy, I’d be surprised if it was only one cousin,” Flake said. I guess that means he wasn’t embarrassed.
Aren’t you glad our tax dollars are helping the Earnhardt family preserve their way of (vacation) life? And no wonder Rep. Jeff Flake wants to cut federal spending. His family gets state pork.
Worse, the Growing Smarter money comes from the General Fund, to protect the education trust fund. If we weren’t paying these “ranchers,” that money would stay in the Permanent Fund and be available for school funding. We’re laying off teachers so we can pay hobby ranchers.
Ranching -- it’s how real Americans enjoy guilt-free welfare!
The Legislature could fix this outrage easily -- by ending it. Instead, they’ll mutter about expectations and stewardship, and do little. If only they would apply the same "creativity" they brought to shafting autistic kids.
Since January 8, 2011, this is a personal blog only. Comments? Email the author, Sam Coppersmith, at SCoppersmith at Charlie Bravo Lima Alpha Whiskey Yankee Echo Romeo Sierra dot com.
Monday, May 12, 2003
Monday, May 05, 2003
Department of Self-Congratulation
Photos from my day yesterday at the Tempe Multi-Sport Challenge (why keep a self-explanatory name like last year's Tempe International Triathlon when you can invent a more self-important and confusing one?) are available here and here. Times aren't available yet. The event organizers emailed in response to my question that the swim course was measured by GPS at 2000 meters, so it was a third longer than planned (certainly by me, anyway). We wound up swimming the US Rowing course by mistake, so the next time some crew jock (and you know who you are) talks about rowing, I can say I swam that course. So my time will be considerably worse than last year, but there's a very good reason for it.
UPDATE: 3:19:55, 20th out of 28 in my age group.
Photos from my day yesterday at the Tempe Multi-Sport Challenge (why keep a self-explanatory name like last year's Tempe International Triathlon when you can invent a more self-important and confusing one?) are available here and here. Times aren't available yet. The event organizers emailed in response to my question that the swim course was measured by GPS at 2000 meters, so it was a third longer than planned (certainly by me, anyway). We wound up swimming the US Rowing course by mistake, so the next time some crew jock (and you know who you are) talks about rowing, I can say I swam that course. So my time will be considerably worse than last year, but there's a very good reason for it.
UPDATE: 3:19:55, 20th out of 28 in my age group.
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The WMD
This week's column is hopefully a bit different; reviews have been mixed. So far the email voting from East Valley Tribune readers is funny, 1; not funny, 1; want to go on at length about renaming Piestewa Peak, 1. Yet another close election for the Supreme Court to decide. We'll see if I have a future in WMD one-liners.
But Seriously, Folks…
NOW FOR A SHOW THAT'LL REALLY SHTICK IT TO YOU
East Valley Tribune, May 4, 2003
I only went to law school because vaudeville died, so with apologies to Bill Scheft, the head monologue writer for the "Late Show with David Letterman" who does this shtick weekly in Sports Illustrated, here’s “The Arizona Show”:
Glad to be here. The Arizona Cardinals considered giving up a draft choice for my column. The trade would have hurt both teams, but it would have made about as much sense as what they did do.
Piestewa Peak You wouldn’t believe the controversy over renaming Squaw Peak. It was as heated as if the Mayor of Phoenix had proposed changing the name of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport to honor Barry Goldwater.
Most Republicans took a “balanced” position, claiming that they certainly agreed with the general idea of honoring Lori Piestewa but sadly disapproved of the manner in which it was done. Just like what the Democrats said about having to go to war with Iraq.
You might not have known that “Piestewa” is Hopi for “staffer behaving badly.” But there’s no truth to the rumor that punishment for Mr. Diaz’s excessive exuberance is having to change his name to “Not-So-Super Mario.”
Still No WMD Found in Iraq What if all the weapons of mass destruction are hidden in the same place as the quagmire?
We’ve had plenty of initial unconfirmed reports of potential quagmires, but after further testing, they turned out to be dual-use predicaments, nonmilitary swamps, or civilian bogs.
So maybe the Bush administration wasn’t telling the truth about why we had to go to war. At least we know the President isn’t fooling around with an intern, and that’s certainly worth losing 2 million jobs over.
You may be worried about Iraq, but I’m more worried about the economy. What if the 1.4 million jobs that’ll supposedly be created by the $550 billion tax plan are as hard to find as Iraq’s WMD?
Maybe that’s the secret of the Bush economic plan -- the rich get their dividends tax-free, and 1.4 million unemployed people could go to Iraq to try to find the stuff.
Which will be more difficult to track down -- Iraqi WMD or enough votes for the GOP leadership state budget?
Tribune Series on Forests The Tribune’s three-part series on forest management tried to portray Sen. Jon Kyl as moderate working hard to find a balance between environmental extremists on one hand and on the other hand -- well, there really wasn’t anybody else on the other hand.
There’s nobody in public office who wants to cut more trees than Jon Kyl. So how can he define one extreme of the debate and still be a “moderate”? That’s like calling Charles Barkley “svelte.” Or Fox News “fair and balanced.”
Rick Santorum Talks Dirty The third-ranking member of the GOP Senate leadership says that government absolutely needs the power to make adultery and homosexual acts a crime, or Western Civilization could tumble into anarchy. Anarchy -- isn’t that a gay bar in Scottsdale?
Santorum, like many Republicans, frets that the government someday might stop you from owning guns -- but wants the government to stop you from having sex.
I guess if sex is more important to you than guns, you’re a Democrat. If guns are more important than sex, then you’re a GOP Member of Congress. There’s something Freudian in that, but this being a family newspaper, I’ll let it pass.
Will some gay guy now rename his dog “Santorum”?
I gotta go. Don’t forget to tip your waitress, and enjoy Hub Kapp and The Wheels.
This week's column is hopefully a bit different; reviews have been mixed. So far the email voting from East Valley Tribune readers is funny, 1; not funny, 1; want to go on at length about renaming Piestewa Peak, 1. Yet another close election for the Supreme Court to decide. We'll see if I have a future in WMD one-liners.
But Seriously, Folks…
NOW FOR A SHOW THAT'LL REALLY SHTICK IT TO YOU
East Valley Tribune, May 4, 2003
I only went to law school because vaudeville died, so with apologies to Bill Scheft, the head monologue writer for the "Late Show with David Letterman" who does this shtick weekly in Sports Illustrated, here’s “The Arizona Show”:
Glad to be here. The Arizona Cardinals considered giving up a draft choice for my column. The trade would have hurt both teams, but it would have made about as much sense as what they did do.
Piestewa Peak You wouldn’t believe the controversy over renaming Squaw Peak. It was as heated as if the Mayor of Phoenix had proposed changing the name of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport to honor Barry Goldwater.
Most Republicans took a “balanced” position, claiming that they certainly agreed with the general idea of honoring Lori Piestewa but sadly disapproved of the manner in which it was done. Just like what the Democrats said about having to go to war with Iraq.
You might not have known that “Piestewa” is Hopi for “staffer behaving badly.” But there’s no truth to the rumor that punishment for Mr. Diaz’s excessive exuberance is having to change his name to “Not-So-Super Mario.”
Still No WMD Found in Iraq What if all the weapons of mass destruction are hidden in the same place as the quagmire?
We’ve had plenty of initial unconfirmed reports of potential quagmires, but after further testing, they turned out to be dual-use predicaments, nonmilitary swamps, or civilian bogs.
So maybe the Bush administration wasn’t telling the truth about why we had to go to war. At least we know the President isn’t fooling around with an intern, and that’s certainly worth losing 2 million jobs over.
You may be worried about Iraq, but I’m more worried about the economy. What if the 1.4 million jobs that’ll supposedly be created by the $550 billion tax plan are as hard to find as Iraq’s WMD?
Maybe that’s the secret of the Bush economic plan -- the rich get their dividends tax-free, and 1.4 million unemployed people could go to Iraq to try to find the stuff.
Which will be more difficult to track down -- Iraqi WMD or enough votes for the GOP leadership state budget?
Tribune Series on Forests The Tribune’s three-part series on forest management tried to portray Sen. Jon Kyl as moderate working hard to find a balance between environmental extremists on one hand and on the other hand -- well, there really wasn’t anybody else on the other hand.
There’s nobody in public office who wants to cut more trees than Jon Kyl. So how can he define one extreme of the debate and still be a “moderate”? That’s like calling Charles Barkley “svelte.” Or Fox News “fair and balanced.”
Rick Santorum Talks Dirty The third-ranking member of the GOP Senate leadership says that government absolutely needs the power to make adultery and homosexual acts a crime, or Western Civilization could tumble into anarchy. Anarchy -- isn’t that a gay bar in Scottsdale?
Santorum, like many Republicans, frets that the government someday might stop you from owning guns -- but wants the government to stop you from having sex.
I guess if sex is more important to you than guns, you’re a Democrat. If guns are more important than sex, then you’re a GOP Member of Congress. There’s something Freudian in that, but this being a family newspaper, I’ll let it pass.
Will some gay guy now rename his dog “Santorum”?
I gotta go. Don’t forget to tip your waitress, and enjoy Hub Kapp and The Wheels.
Monday, April 28, 2003
That Was Then, This Is Now--Five Weeks Later
Here's this week's Tribune column. I wanted to compare the reaction to Newt Gingrich's speech after the war with Tom Daschle's unscripted remarks before the war. Notice the difference in the vehemence of the reaction, which essentially boiled down to that Newt may be egotistical but Daschle is a coward and a traitor. (And tell me again which one of them is the Vietnam veteran?) And for all of the GOP assertion that Newt has been banished to the wilderness, he still has the AEI post, the Fox News gig, and the seat on the Defense Policy Board, just like Richard Perle. Sheesh.
Those of you not in Arizona may not know about the multi-million dollar verdict against Corporation Commissioner Jim Irvin for attempting to use his office to steer a multi-state merger to a firm affiliated with his former chief of staff. But you probably don't want to know.
The Two-Faced GOP
REPUBLICANS' DOUBLE STANDARD ALMOST REFLECTIVE
East Valley Tribune, Apr. 27, 2003
Impeachment, diplomacy, whatever: Watch the GOP double standard at work again.
Last month, it was treason -- treason! -- to disparage the Bush administration’s diplomacy. Now it’s conservative holy writ.
Try this test developed by Wyeth Ruthven. See any substantive difference in these two statements?
“I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”
“The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success. The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory.”
The first speaker was Sen. Tom Daschle on March 18, the second was former Speaker Newt Gingrich on April 22. The differences? Five weeks and party registration.
In March, calling Bush administration diplomacy a failure was unpatriotic, treasonous, even French. Now conservatives are fighting other battles, so calling Bush administration diplomacy a failure is a heroic duty. Watch George Will’s columns for the exact parameters of this new “reality.”
Of course, whenever a Republican criticizes the administration, it’s the fault of some disembodied department or anonymous bureaucrat, not the White House. It’s not Bush administration diplomacy, it’s the State Department’s fault. The sign on President Bush’s desk apparently says “The buck stops over there.”
That certainly fits with GOP spin about George W. Bush, that he sets grand, strategic visions and doesn’t bother with details, leaving those to subordinates. Then they pretend that whenever anything good happens, it’s a grand, strategic thing, and whenever anything bad happens, it’s a detail -- far beneath (or beyond) the President’s brain.
No Republican ever let Bill Clinton dodge personal responsibility for anything that went wrong anywhere in the federal government, no matter how obscure. But then, Clinton is smart, so people assumed he knew what was going on. That’s a burden Bush need not bear.
And speaking of Clinton, notice how the rules for impeachment have changed, now that it’s a Republican in trouble? In 1998, when Clinton’s behavior in a civil lawsuit was at issue, the GOP swore its duty to uphold the law without exception or delay. In 2003, when Corporation Commissioner Jim Irvin’s behavior in a civil lawsuit is at issue, the GOP doesn’t want to rush things.
The perjury charges against Clinton came from a prosecutor -- Kenneth Starr -- and never went to court. The extortion and abuse of office charges against Jim Irvin are a jury verdict after a full trial. But it was vital to have Clinton’s impeachment and trial immediately, but with Irvin, legislators will wait until he exhausts his appeals.
In 1998, J. D. Hayworth flouted the usual per-sentence limit on clichés explaining why we had to impeach Clinton immediately: “[F]or those who want to carve out an exception to the rule of law, it is as if we take the scales of justice from the hands of Lady Justice, and take off her blindfold and ask her to put an eye on the opinion polls and a moistened finger in the wind.”
This past week, Speaker Jake Flake said the House wouldn’t worry about impeaching Irvin because, well, they’re really busy with the budget, and the legal process is still ongoing, and the voters had reelected him. Apparently, Lady Justice may take off that blindfold -- for a Republican.
Lots of times in politics you risk being called a hypocrite. But do Republicans really want to waste one of them on Jim Irvin?
Here's this week's Tribune column. I wanted to compare the reaction to Newt Gingrich's speech after the war with Tom Daschle's unscripted remarks before the war. Notice the difference in the vehemence of the reaction, which essentially boiled down to that Newt may be egotistical but Daschle is a coward and a traitor. (And tell me again which one of them is the Vietnam veteran?) And for all of the GOP assertion that Newt has been banished to the wilderness, he still has the AEI post, the Fox News gig, and the seat on the Defense Policy Board, just like Richard Perle. Sheesh.
Those of you not in Arizona may not know about the multi-million dollar verdict against Corporation Commissioner Jim Irvin for attempting to use his office to steer a multi-state merger to a firm affiliated with his former chief of staff. But you probably don't want to know.
The Two-Faced GOP
REPUBLICANS' DOUBLE STANDARD ALMOST REFLECTIVE
East Valley Tribune, Apr. 27, 2003
Impeachment, diplomacy, whatever: Watch the GOP double standard at work again.
Last month, it was treason -- treason! -- to disparage the Bush administration’s diplomacy. Now it’s conservative holy writ.
Try this test developed by Wyeth Ruthven. See any substantive difference in these two statements?
“I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”
“The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success. The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory.”
The first speaker was Sen. Tom Daschle on March 18, the second was former Speaker Newt Gingrich on April 22. The differences? Five weeks and party registration.
In March, calling Bush administration diplomacy a failure was unpatriotic, treasonous, even French. Now conservatives are fighting other battles, so calling Bush administration diplomacy a failure is a heroic duty. Watch George Will’s columns for the exact parameters of this new “reality.”
Of course, whenever a Republican criticizes the administration, it’s the fault of some disembodied department or anonymous bureaucrat, not the White House. It’s not Bush administration diplomacy, it’s the State Department’s fault. The sign on President Bush’s desk apparently says “The buck stops over there.”
That certainly fits with GOP spin about George W. Bush, that he sets grand, strategic visions and doesn’t bother with details, leaving those to subordinates. Then they pretend that whenever anything good happens, it’s a grand, strategic thing, and whenever anything bad happens, it’s a detail -- far beneath (or beyond) the President’s brain.
No Republican ever let Bill Clinton dodge personal responsibility for anything that went wrong anywhere in the federal government, no matter how obscure. But then, Clinton is smart, so people assumed he knew what was going on. That’s a burden Bush need not bear.
And speaking of Clinton, notice how the rules for impeachment have changed, now that it’s a Republican in trouble? In 1998, when Clinton’s behavior in a civil lawsuit was at issue, the GOP swore its duty to uphold the law without exception or delay. In 2003, when Corporation Commissioner Jim Irvin’s behavior in a civil lawsuit is at issue, the GOP doesn’t want to rush things.
The perjury charges against Clinton came from a prosecutor -- Kenneth Starr -- and never went to court. The extortion and abuse of office charges against Jim Irvin are a jury verdict after a full trial. But it was vital to have Clinton’s impeachment and trial immediately, but with Irvin, legislators will wait until he exhausts his appeals.
In 1998, J. D. Hayworth flouted the usual per-sentence limit on clichés explaining why we had to impeach Clinton immediately: “[F]or those who want to carve out an exception to the rule of law, it is as if we take the scales of justice from the hands of Lady Justice, and take off her blindfold and ask her to put an eye on the opinion polls and a moistened finger in the wind.”
This past week, Speaker Jake Flake said the House wouldn’t worry about impeaching Irvin because, well, they’re really busy with the budget, and the legal process is still ongoing, and the voters had reelected him. Apparently, Lady Justice may take off that blindfold -- for a Republican.
Lots of times in politics you risk being called a hypocrite. But do Republicans really want to waste one of them on Jim Irvin?
Monday, April 21, 2003
Tax Cuts--the GOP Cure for Everything (even birth defects)
President Bush comes out for universal health care and adequately funded public schools -- in Iraq! Which is funnier, real life or the cartoon version?
This week's column notes yet another imagination-boggling cut in the GOP leadership budget, based on a column by Dr. Allen Erenberg of the University of Arizona School of Medicine. If Saddam Hussein had eliminated funding for health care for prenatal pregnancy and premature babies to fund tax cuts for his cronies, that would have justified invading Iraq. The Arizona Legislature does it, and claims fiscal responsibility. Guess we could use a little regime change around here, too.
Want proof that these pro-lifers really do only care about kids from the moment of conception until the instant of birth? Here it is.
The Budget Battle
GOP PRIORITIES DON'T INCLUDE NEWBORNS AT RISK
East Valley Tribune, Apr. 20, 2003
The GOP legislative leadership must avoid tons of stress by having no memory. Why else would what they said yesterday have no bearing on what they’ll say tomorrow?
“Fast Eddie” Farnsworth (who with each passing day seems more like Jeff Groscost with half the brains and none of the charm) and his legislative pals have a problem. GOP ideology requires them to balance the state budget on the backs of kids, families, and the elderly.
The GOP simply can’t make their numbers work without cutting help for parents with autistic kids, assistance for keeping the elderly in their homes, and vaccinations for children. Each day reveals yet another hard-hearted and fiscally stupid budget decision.
The latest is the leadership’s proposal to eliminate funding for neonatal medical programs. Dr. Allen Erenberg, a professor at the University of Arizona School of Medicine, wrote last week in the Arizona Daily Star about the Legislature’s proposal to eliminate funding for women at risk of pre-term labor or delivering high-risk babies. Last year, the program served 10,000 women. Next year, if the GOP leadership gets its way, the program won’t exist.
The cut also will eliminate aid for maternal/neonatal transport. If a woman in a rural area goes into early labor, or her premature baby may be critically ill, doctors now fly her to a Level III neonatal intensive care unit in Phoenix or Tucson. Rural hospitals simply can’t afford those facilities. Without transport funding, many premature babies simply won’t make it.
These so-called “pro-life” legislators constantly proclaim their deep and sincere commitment to helping children from the instant of conception to the moment of birth -- but not one minute more.
Might they make a teensy exception for premature babies who didn’t get nine full months in the womb? No way, baby. Once you’re born, you get a budget cut.
Good luck dealing with all those premature birth and low birth weight problems. Instead, the GOP will cut taxes on the rich. I’d joke that the Legislature thinks they’d be giving premature infants economic incentives to avoid birth defects -- but in the Arizona Legislature, that’s how they actually think.
Let me remind everyone yet again that there’s a competing budget plan from Gov. Napolitano that does none of these things. The governor’s budget doesn’t eliminate neonatal funding, childhood immunizations, and developmentally disabled services. And you ‘wingers can huff and puff and tell your usual lies about Democrats and liberals, but her budget doesn’t raise taxes.
But the Republicans still profess horror, claiming that the Governor’s budget involves too much borrowing, which is a terrible, terrible thing and which the GOP cannot countenance. Well, couldn’t countenance ten days ago. This past week, however, borrowing became cool again.
The GOP leadership now supports borrowing $400 million to build research facilities at the three state universities. What’s more, the GOP-approved borrowing plan also requires setting aside the Legislature’s rules to hear a late bill.
So now that it’s just peachy to bend the rules to borrow money, and if the Governor’s budget doesn’t raise taxes, what exactly are the GOP’s core principles? That people elected them to stop caring for premature babies? To increase childhood diseases by slashing funds for vaccinations? To “incentivize” kids not to become autistic by eliminating their services?
How do you complain about borrowing for months, then suddenly agree to borrow $400 million? Maybe the same way some people can go to church on Sunday, hear sermons about helping the least among us, then on Monday make the elderly, children, and the disabled pay the price of their ideological obstinacy.
Maybe it’s not a lack of memory. Maybe it’s something more fundamental -- like a lack of morality.
President Bush comes out for universal health care and adequately funded public schools -- in Iraq! Which is funnier, real life or the cartoon version?
This week's column notes yet another imagination-boggling cut in the GOP leadership budget, based on a column by Dr. Allen Erenberg of the University of Arizona School of Medicine. If Saddam Hussein had eliminated funding for health care for prenatal pregnancy and premature babies to fund tax cuts for his cronies, that would have justified invading Iraq. The Arizona Legislature does it, and claims fiscal responsibility. Guess we could use a little regime change around here, too.
Want proof that these pro-lifers really do only care about kids from the moment of conception until the instant of birth? Here it is.
The Budget Battle
GOP PRIORITIES DON'T INCLUDE NEWBORNS AT RISK
East Valley Tribune, Apr. 20, 2003
The GOP legislative leadership must avoid tons of stress by having no memory. Why else would what they said yesterday have no bearing on what they’ll say tomorrow?
“Fast Eddie” Farnsworth (who with each passing day seems more like Jeff Groscost with half the brains and none of the charm) and his legislative pals have a problem. GOP ideology requires them to balance the state budget on the backs of kids, families, and the elderly.
The GOP simply can’t make their numbers work without cutting help for parents with autistic kids, assistance for keeping the elderly in their homes, and vaccinations for children. Each day reveals yet another hard-hearted and fiscally stupid budget decision.
The latest is the leadership’s proposal to eliminate funding for neonatal medical programs. Dr. Allen Erenberg, a professor at the University of Arizona School of Medicine, wrote last week in the Arizona Daily Star about the Legislature’s proposal to eliminate funding for women at risk of pre-term labor or delivering high-risk babies. Last year, the program served 10,000 women. Next year, if the GOP leadership gets its way, the program won’t exist.
The cut also will eliminate aid for maternal/neonatal transport. If a woman in a rural area goes into early labor, or her premature baby may be critically ill, doctors now fly her to a Level III neonatal intensive care unit in Phoenix or Tucson. Rural hospitals simply can’t afford those facilities. Without transport funding, many premature babies simply won’t make it.
These so-called “pro-life” legislators constantly proclaim their deep and sincere commitment to helping children from the instant of conception to the moment of birth -- but not one minute more.
Might they make a teensy exception for premature babies who didn’t get nine full months in the womb? No way, baby. Once you’re born, you get a budget cut.
Good luck dealing with all those premature birth and low birth weight problems. Instead, the GOP will cut taxes on the rich. I’d joke that the Legislature thinks they’d be giving premature infants economic incentives to avoid birth defects -- but in the Arizona Legislature, that’s how they actually think.
Let me remind everyone yet again that there’s a competing budget plan from Gov. Napolitano that does none of these things. The governor’s budget doesn’t eliminate neonatal funding, childhood immunizations, and developmentally disabled services. And you ‘wingers can huff and puff and tell your usual lies about Democrats and liberals, but her budget doesn’t raise taxes.
But the Republicans still profess horror, claiming that the Governor’s budget involves too much borrowing, which is a terrible, terrible thing and which the GOP cannot countenance. Well, couldn’t countenance ten days ago. This past week, however, borrowing became cool again.
The GOP leadership now supports borrowing $400 million to build research facilities at the three state universities. What’s more, the GOP-approved borrowing plan also requires setting aside the Legislature’s rules to hear a late bill.
So now that it’s just peachy to bend the rules to borrow money, and if the Governor’s budget doesn’t raise taxes, what exactly are the GOP’s core principles? That people elected them to stop caring for premature babies? To increase childhood diseases by slashing funds for vaccinations? To “incentivize” kids not to become autistic by eliminating their services?
How do you complain about borrowing for months, then suddenly agree to borrow $400 million? Maybe the same way some people can go to church on Sunday, hear sermons about helping the least among us, then on Monday make the elderly, children, and the disabled pay the price of their ideological obstinacy.
Maybe it’s not a lack of memory. Maybe it’s something more fundamental -- like a lack of morality.
Monday, April 14, 2003
If You Were a Corporation, We'd Treat You Better
I hadn't seen some of the discussion comparing the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the "three strikes" cases (Ewing and Andrade) with the punitive damages case (State Farm) in actual newsprint. In State Farm, the Court refused to let a state court consider what a corporation did in other situations. Of course, "three strikes" laws are explicitly designed to consider what a person did in other situations (and for which they presumably have been punished already).
It's the Sandra Day O'Connor view of the world, I guess: If people incorporated themselves, they'd have more constitutional rights.
Judicial Class Warfare
HIGH COURT'S HARD HAND NOT EQUALLY APPLIED
East Valley Tribune, Apr. 13, 2003
There’s a difference when liberals and conservatives engage in class warfare: Conservatives play for keeps.
The U.S. Supreme Court just signed with this “it’s money that matters” philosophy. First, in March, the court ruled twice that the constitution lets states impose throw-away-the-key sentences, even for minor crimes, on repeat offenders.
In Ewing v. California, a felon with two prior non-violent convictions committed a third felony, stealing golf clubs valued at $1,200. As Ewing’s “third strike,” he got 25 years to life in prison. In Lockyer v. Andrade, another crook with two prior convictions stole videotapes worth $153, and got 50 years without parole.
The Supreme Court decided these sentences weren’t too harsh or disproportionate for repeat criminals, even non-violent ones. Apparently, the constitution says 50 years in prison, without the possibility of parole, is just fine for a $153 crime.
After Ewing and Andrade, you’d think that if a state wants to have really long prison sentences, it also could have really big civil penalties, too. Wrong. Last week, in State Farm v. Campbell, the court overturned a punitive damages award as so excessive, so disproportionate, that it violated the 14th Amendment.
The State Farm award was huge -- $145 million in punitive damages compared to actual damages of only $1 million. The court declared that the 145:1 ratio violated due process, implying that anything greater than 10:1 was unconstitutional. In Ewing and Andrade, the constitution said nothing about a 50-year sentence for a $153 theft. But apparently money gets more constitutional protections than liberty.
By the State Farm standard, either the Supreme Court valued a year of Andrade’s life at about three bucks, or else corporations just get that much more judicial solicitude than people.
Sure, Ewing and Andrade are petty thieves, in every sense. They got caught, convicted, and should pay for each crime. But if a third theft may mean a 50-year sentence, why do corporations deserve searching judicial concern about fundamental fairness?
As Justice Kennedy wrote, when reviewing a judgment against a corporation, “courts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm.” But when it’s about people (yes, even criminals are people), neither standard applies.
Both Sam Heldman and Nathan Newman wrote about these decisions, and neither could detect a principled basis to give corporations greater constitutional rights than individuals. If anything, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” provides a strong textual basis for deciding Ewing and Andrade the opposite way. There’s nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment to justify federal constitutional review of excessive state court punitive damages awards on the grounds of fundamental fairness.
But you won’t hear from those conservatives who demand that courts stop legislating and stick to the words of the constitution, because in State Farm, they got the result they wanted.
This corporations-matter-more-than-people philosophy has swept the country. We’re cutting taxes on capital but raising them on labor. Businesses have our blessing to lobby for tax breaks and contracts, but if parents with disabled kids want to fight for their programs, they’re just some special interest.
The Goldwater Institute can raise more than half its money from nine contributors, each giving more than $100,000 in tax-deductible dollars and who undoubtedly get back far more than that in tax breaks and pet legislation, and it’s a respected think tank. Scottsdale firefighters can decide they need to organize to protect their lives, pensions, and community, and they’re a grubby union.
Sure, I believe corporations deserve due process and fundamental fairness. My problems is that I think actual people do, too. Just a dreamer, I guess.
I hadn't seen some of the discussion comparing the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the "three strikes" cases (Ewing and Andrade) with the punitive damages case (State Farm) in actual newsprint. In State Farm, the Court refused to let a state court consider what a corporation did in other situations. Of course, "three strikes" laws are explicitly designed to consider what a person did in other situations (and for which they presumably have been punished already).
It's the Sandra Day O'Connor view of the world, I guess: If people incorporated themselves, they'd have more constitutional rights.
Judicial Class Warfare
HIGH COURT'S HARD HAND NOT EQUALLY APPLIED
East Valley Tribune, Apr. 13, 2003
There’s a difference when liberals and conservatives engage in class warfare: Conservatives play for keeps.
The U.S. Supreme Court just signed with this “it’s money that matters” philosophy. First, in March, the court ruled twice that the constitution lets states impose throw-away-the-key sentences, even for minor crimes, on repeat offenders.
In Ewing v. California, a felon with two prior non-violent convictions committed a third felony, stealing golf clubs valued at $1,200. As Ewing’s “third strike,” he got 25 years to life in prison. In Lockyer v. Andrade, another crook with two prior convictions stole videotapes worth $153, and got 50 years without parole.
The Supreme Court decided these sentences weren’t too harsh or disproportionate for repeat criminals, even non-violent ones. Apparently, the constitution says 50 years in prison, without the possibility of parole, is just fine for a $153 crime.
After Ewing and Andrade, you’d think that if a state wants to have really long prison sentences, it also could have really big civil penalties, too. Wrong. Last week, in State Farm v. Campbell, the court overturned a punitive damages award as so excessive, so disproportionate, that it violated the 14th Amendment.
The State Farm award was huge -- $145 million in punitive damages compared to actual damages of only $1 million. The court declared that the 145:1 ratio violated due process, implying that anything greater than 10:1 was unconstitutional. In Ewing and Andrade, the constitution said nothing about a 50-year sentence for a $153 theft. But apparently money gets more constitutional protections than liberty.
By the State Farm standard, either the Supreme Court valued a year of Andrade’s life at about three bucks, or else corporations just get that much more judicial solicitude than people.
Sure, Ewing and Andrade are petty thieves, in every sense. They got caught, convicted, and should pay for each crime. But if a third theft may mean a 50-year sentence, why do corporations deserve searching judicial concern about fundamental fairness?
As Justice Kennedy wrote, when reviewing a judgment against a corporation, “courts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm.” But when it’s about people (yes, even criminals are people), neither standard applies.
Both Sam Heldman and Nathan Newman wrote about these decisions, and neither could detect a principled basis to give corporations greater constitutional rights than individuals. If anything, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” provides a strong textual basis for deciding Ewing and Andrade the opposite way. There’s nothing in the text of the 14th Amendment to justify federal constitutional review of excessive state court punitive damages awards on the grounds of fundamental fairness.
But you won’t hear from those conservatives who demand that courts stop legislating and stick to the words of the constitution, because in State Farm, they got the result they wanted.
This corporations-matter-more-than-people philosophy has swept the country. We’re cutting taxes on capital but raising them on labor. Businesses have our blessing to lobby for tax breaks and contracts, but if parents with disabled kids want to fight for their programs, they’re just some special interest.
The Goldwater Institute can raise more than half its money from nine contributors, each giving more than $100,000 in tax-deductible dollars and who undoubtedly get back far more than that in tax breaks and pet legislation, and it’s a respected think tank. Scottsdale firefighters can decide they need to organize to protect their lives, pensions, and community, and they’re a grubby union.
Sure, I believe corporations deserve due process and fundamental fairness. My problems is that I think actual people do, too. Just a dreamer, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)