People's Budget

Majority of Democrats Vote for Progressive Caucus People’s Budget (video)

People's BudgetEach year, during the Congressional budgeting process, multiple budgets are proposed in the US House of Representatives. If you’re lucky, you might hear about the Republican budget from the mainstream media (since they hold the majority of seats in the House and since that budget usually contains some weird shit like converting Medicare to a voucher program). The Democrats and the Progressives also put forth budgets for consideration and voting. (Representatives can vote for any or all of the plans; they are not mutually exclusive.)

This year– for the first time — the majority of Democrats (96 out of 188) actually voted for the Congressional Progressive Caucus People’s Budget. Of Arizona Democrats in the House, Representatives Raul Grijalva and Ruben Gallego voted for it; Representatives Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema voted “no” with the majority of Republicans.

From the Congressional Progressive Caucus…

The People’s Budget: A Raise for America

8.4 million good paying jobs by 2018

$1.9 trillion investment in America’s future

$820 billion infrastructure and transportation improvements

The People’s Budget fixes an economy that, for too long, has failed to provide the opportunities American families need to get ahead. Despite their skills and work ethic, most American workers and families are so financially strapped from increasing income inequality that their paychecks barely cover basic necessities. They earn less and less as corporations and the wealthy continue amassing record profits. It has become clear to American workers that the system is rigged.

The People’s Budget levels the playing field and creates economic opportunity by increasing the pay of middle- and low-income Americans. More customers and higher consumer spending advance American businesses, not tax cuts and relaxed regulations. The People’s Budget drives a full economic recovery by creating high-quality jobs and reducing family expenses, restoring the buying power of working Americans.

Read more

Martha McSally: demonstrating little influence or success in a Tea-Publican Congress

McSallyRep. Martha McSally (R-Raytheon) was in Southern Arizona last week for a district work week. She held a town hall at her former employer, Raytheon missile systems in Tucson.

This report from the Arizona Daily Star reads as if it was prepared from a McSally press backgrounder. McSally vows to be strong voice for defense, Raytheon:

Before moving to a podium to speak to employees of Raytheon Missile Systems on Wednesday, Arizona Rep. Martha McSally moved stage right to the display of an inert Maverick missile.

“I think I’m the first congresswoman or person from your district that has actually shot your missile,” the freshman Republican lawmaker told a crowd of Raytheon missile-makers at the company’s facility at the University of Arizona Tech Park.

McSally, a retired Air Force colonel who fired Mavericks as the first female fighter pilot in combat, said her experience piloting A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack jets gives her a unique perspective she plans to use to push for a stronger defense budget, save the A-10 from a planned retirement and boost Raytheon’s role in national security.

She vowed to work for a strong defense budget and to keep defense jobs in Southern Arizona.

Read more

Forecasting the Court’s opinion in the Arizona redistricting case

SupremeCourtIt’s a rare day when the media arm of the Arizona Republican Party, The Arizona Republic(an), Our View: Lawmakers vs. the people – who wins? (Our View: The people have spoken. They don’t trust lawmakers to draw election maps. But will the Supreme Court listen?), and the “librul” New York Times, Will the Supreme Court Say No to Gerrymandering? (Americans need to have more direct control over the integrity of the electoral process), can agree with one another: Republicans in the Arizona legislature determining congressional district boundaries is a bad thing.

Unfortunately, both editorial boards are going to be disappointed by what the U.S. Supreme Court appears most likely to do in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

I have read most of the national news media reporting on the oral argument yesterday, and the vast majority of reporting is in the vein of this AP headline: Justices Seem Skeptical of Independent map Drawers.

Election law attorney Rick Hasen has his Analysis: Supreme Court Looks to Endanger Citizen Redistricting Commissions and MORE:

I have now had a chance to review the transcript in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and the news is not good. It appears that the conservative Justices may be ready to hold that citizen redistricting commissions which have no role for state legislatures in drawing congressional districts are unconstitutional. What’s worse, such a ruling would endanger other election laws passed by voter initiative trying to regulate congressional elections, such as open primaries. For those who don’t like campaign finance laws because they could protect incumbents, this is a ruling that could make incumbency protection all the worse, removing the crucial legislative bypass which is the initiative process (for congressional elections).

Read more

Arizona’s lawless Tea-Publican legislature vs. Arizona citizens in the Supreme Court today

SupremeCourtBlog for Arizona contributor Steve Muratore from the Arizona Eagletarian blog will be inside the U.S. Supreme Court this morning for oral argument in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Steve has chronicled the 2012 Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) better than any reporter in Arizona, and I look forward to his reporting later today.

Here is a preview of today’s argument from Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog. Argument preview: Who, exactly, is “the legislature”?:

At [8 a.m. Arizona time] Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument on the power of voters to take away from state legislatures the task of drawing new election district maps, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Background

From time to time, at least since 1898, the people in America’s states have decided to take government into their own hands, withdrawing it from elected politicians when the voters think they have done the job badly, or not at all.  “Direct democracy” has cycles of popularity, and may be in a new one now, as political polarization spreads worry that elected lawmakers think party first and public good second.  The Supreme Court looks into such a reclaiming of people power [today].

Read more

Rep. Paul Gosar gets ‘Four Pinocchios’ for lying about immigration

Gosar Bundy Ward 14 April 2014The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, awards Cliven Bundy’s pal Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar “Four Pinocchios” for lying to his constituents about President Obama’s immigration program. Lawmaker bungles immigration facts at town hall meeting:

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), remarks at a rural issues roundtable, Payson, Ariz., Feb. 9, 2015:

It was learned the household income deferred tax credit applied retroactively for three years. So each illegal alien will get $24,000 in compensation.” [The crowd expresses some surprise at this fact, with one person saying “what?”] “Yep, absolutely. You start looking at the process where the GDP [gross domestic product] of Mexico, the second largest input to that, is our system of Social Security and benefits.”

[H]ow reliable is the information that is being given at town hall events?

[Watch the video recorded by American Bridge.]

We wondered that as we watched a clip of a town hall meeting held by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.). As you can see, the crowd is quite taken aback by one his assertions — that President Obama proposes to give $24,000 to “each illegal alien.” Then he goes onto to say that the second-largest part of the Mexican gross domestic product consists of benefits from Social Security.

Neither of those statements is remotely true. In one case, there’s an element of truth, but the second statement is really wrong.

Read more