The Nation exposes Pete Peterson’s Fix The Debt fraud

 

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about this the other day, Bowles-Simpson 2.0 – The 'very serious people' of the Beltway media perpetrate a fraud on the American people. Now the editors of The Nation expose Pete Peterson's Fix The Debt fraud in Stacking the Deck: The Phony 'Fix the Debt' Campaign:

As Paul Krugman reminds us, “Inside the Beltway Simpson and Bowles have
become sacred figures. But the people doing that elevation are the same
people who told us that Paul Ryan was the answer to our fiscal prayers.”

Who does that elevating? Meet the Campaign to Fix the Debt, the
billionaire-funded project that uses Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles as
figureheads for a fearmongering campaign to convince Americans that the
deficits the United States has run throughout its history have suddenly
metastasized into “a cancer that will destroy this country from within.”
It is the latest incarnation of Wall Street mogul Pete Peterson’s long
campaign to get Congress and the White House to cut Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid while providing tax breaks for corporations and
the wealthy
.

Fun with Brewer’s Performance Funding model

by David Safier

Jan Brewer has given us a new toy, a K-12 Performance Funding Calculator. Plug in a school's current state grade score, then plug in what you think the score will be the next year, and out comes the school's Performance Funding for the next year.

It's important to know as I run through a few examples, the bill, SB1444, has the Performance Funding ramping up over 5 years, so the first year schools will only get 20% of what should come from the model. That's why all the numbers are lower than I indicated in the series of posts I wrote about Performance Funding. The following year schools will get 40%, then 60% and so on.

So, let's look at Catalina Foothills High, a school with affluent students (6% are on free/reduced lunch) that earned an A grade with a score of 157 (140 or higher is an A). If the school shows no improvement, it will get $44.64 extra per student. Once the full funding model kicks in after 5 years, that number will be $223.20 extra per student.

Now let's look at TUSD's Pueblo High, a school where 89% of the students are Hispanic and 79% are on free/reduced lunch. It got a D grade with a score of 99, one point below a C. If it shows no improvement, it will actually lose $17.26 per student (that would be an $86.30 loss under full funding), because a D school gets no performance funding, and $17.26 is taken from every school's budget and put into the Performance Funding pot.

(Update) States consider liability insurance for guns

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In this continuing series, the New York Times reports Buying a Gun? States Consider Insurance Rule:

Both sides in a nation sharply divided over guns seem to agree on at least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry in a heavily armed society. But just what that role should be, and whether insurers will choose to accept it, are much in dispute.

Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy auto insurance. Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.

“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he added.

No U Turn?

by David Safier

ImagesI pulled out of the Park Place Mall earlier today, turned right onto Broadway, went to the next left turn lane and made a U Turn. Half a block later, a policeman pulled me over for making an illegal turn. He told me that turn lane is only for turning into the Best Buy parking lot. There are two "No U Turn" signs posted that I didn't see.

Officer Lyons was a polite young man. When he returned with my ticket, I said, equally politely, "I'm not contesting the ticket, but I have a question. In what way is a U turn more dangerous in that spot than a left turn into the parking lot? They both involve crossing oncoming traffic."

He said he didn't know that one was more dangerous than the other. But he said there's a similar No U Turn posting heading west on a left turn lane that takes you into the Park Place parking lot. In fact, he said, he had ticketed someone there earlier today. I commented that it may have more to do with getting customers into the store parking lots than with traffic safety. He smiled and shrugged.

Citizens United 2.0 – U.S. Supreme Court to lift aggregate limits to campaign contributions?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

GavelOn Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536), a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court could open the door to even more money in politics than it did in its disastrous 2010 decision, Citizens United v FEC. If the court sides with the challengers in McCutcheon v FEC, political power and influence in America will further be concentrated in the hands of wealthy elite plutocrats.

Lyle Denniston at Scotusblog.com provides a brief summary, Campaign donation issue reopened:

Giving itself the option of changing its mind on government power to
limit campaign contributions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set the stage
for review of the constitutionality of a specific donation ceiling set
by federal law, but a larger issue looms in the background. Since the
Court’s landmark opinion in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo,
it has always given government more leeway to control contributions to
candidates or political organizations than over spending by candidates
or by independent political activists. That differing
constitutional treatment potentially is at stake in the new case
, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536).