State budget halfway home, includes Medicaid expansion

At 9:00 pm Thursday, the Arizona Senate adjourned until Tuesday after having passed a series of budget bills for Fiscal Year 2014. Despite early reports of potential divisions among the Senate Democratic Caucus, the members remained steadfastly united throughout floor debate and Third Read votes.

There were ample portions of "drama" on the video feed broadcast online, but none of it was from or about weak links among the 13 members of the Minority (Democratic) Caucus. Shortly after adjournment, Democratic political consultant and former Arizona House Minority Leader John Loredo summed it up.

Tonight Senate Democrats along with a handful of courageous Republicans passed a reasonable, responsible budget. Dems learned that when you have serious leverage, you can hold out for some pretty amazing victories - if you don't throw in the towel too early. Dems held their votes on Medicaid until the R[epublicans] agreed to remove permanent cuts to public education, stop the voter suppression BRB [SB 1493, the elections ominous bill], removed a sweetheart deal for Arpaio and passed several other amendments. 

By the way, the $1.5 million the GOP proposed for Arpaio had no specifically stated purpose. It was "just because." Thankfully, Senate Democrats saw to it that the brown nosing the hardline Republicans had in store for the Maricopa County Sheriff was stopped dead in its tracks. Much like Arpaio will once the recall petition signatures are officially filed.

The drama witnessed online was all about whining by Senate President Andy Biggs and his extreme right-wing colleagues. Ultimately, the 13 Democrats, together with a coalition of a handful of Republicans made this happen. Earlier today, floor debate took place. Notably, Biggs introduced a dozen or so amendments to the Medicaid expansion bill. Most of those amendments died as a result of 12-18 or 13-17 votes.

Biggs tried to attach a "Prop 108" clause to the Medicaid bill (SB1492), which if he had succeeded would have required 20 votes in the Senate and 40 votes in the House for the bill to be enacted into law. Self-enrichment attorney and Sen. from Chandler, Steve Yarbrough read a long and prepared statement that sounded like a legal brief or pleading he might file in a court. But this was not a court, it was a political arena. The motion to add the Prop 108 clause failed by a 12-18 vote.

The significance of that potential amendment looms large. SB1492 passed on Third Read 19-11. With a  Prop 108 clause included, it would have still been one vote shy of passage.

As it was, Biggs and friends threatened litigation. Additionally, on Third Read, Yarbrough in tremendously dramatic fashion declared "Mark my words!" He went on to say that the federal government (which he did not explain would actually be Congress, IF it happens) would "renig" on the promise to provide 90 percent of the funding to cover those eligible by way of the expansion. He also, apparently believing himself to be a prophet or something, said that when the feds back out of the promise to provide the enhanced match rate, there will be no political will in Arizona to rescind the coverage for expanded Medicaid eligible population.

Which brings me to another point of the drama. At the end of his time introducing and trying to win adoption of his floor amendments, Biggs also tried to wax prophetic.

The Arizona Republic characterized the situation:

Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, a steadfast opponent of the governor’s proposal, fought unsuccessfully to kill it with a slew of amendments, including requiring a two-thirds vote for approval, eliminating a hospital tax that will help pay for expansion, converting all state employee health insurance to Medicaid and repealing expansion if even one Medicaid patient is found to be an undocumented citizen.

“This is the most important policy decision that we’ve encountered in a generation,” Biggs said during a rambling floor speech that included lessons about why the federal government — “a dubious partner” — should not be trusted.

I'll agree that this is (among) the most important policy decision(s) we've encountered in a generation. And I absolutely agree that Biggs floor speech can be fairly characterized as rambling, among other things.

But he also emphatically claimed that by 2018 there would be an additional 600,000 Arizonans eligible for Medicaid. I'm not sure anyone else picked up on that. Sure, it might have been hyperbole but he DID SAY it. Now, perhaps the most important policy QUESTION that should be asked in a generation is, "WHY would there be 600 thousand ADDITIONAL Arizonans eligible for Medicaid?"

For that to actually happen, wouldn't there have to be a mass employer exodus OUT of Arizona... more than are already leaving (like US Airways, which is merging with American Airlines and moving its headquarters to Dallas)?

WHY would such a mass exodus take place? Can you say, extreme right-wing austerity? If the GOP ever succeeds in regaining a supermajority in the Arizona Legislature, you can safely bet they will decimate K-12 and Higher Education. That's just for starters.

By the way, in an attempt simply to frustrate the prevailing side in today's floor debate, Sen. Rick Murphy was going through a series of motions at the end trying to get the (possibly two dozen or so) failed amendments reconsidered and subject to roll call votes.

After the sixth such motion, Rich Crandall, one of the rebellious Republicans made the motion to call the previous question, which put a stop to Murphy's (and Biggs') shenanigans. Biggs had to take a couple of minutes to consult with Senate staff to find out if he could declare that motion out of order. He then summoned the Senate Rules attorney to further inquire.

Upon realizing that Crandall's motion was fully appropriate for the situation, and took precedence, Biggs had to allow a vote on it. Crandall's motion passed 18-10, after which Biggs was (according to observers there in person) noticably upset, banged his gavel hard and declared the Senate to be at recess for 45 minutes. They didn't reconvene for two and a half hours.

Here's the Friends O'Farley update:

Howdy, Friends O'Farley,

Here's the brief update I promised you during the last Farley Report:

I have served seven sessions in the Legislature. I have never before experienced a day like today. Together with five brave Republicans -- Majority Leader John McComish, Majority Whip Adam Driggs, Rich Crandall, Steve Pierce, and Bob Worsley, we 13 Senate Democrats amended and passed budget bills to invest in Child Protective Services, K-12 and Higher Education, State Parks and Arts Commission grants, Adult Education and Literacy, and above all, the Governor's Medicaid restoration plan to cover 300,000 more people in poverty, save our hospitals and boost our economy. The bills now move to the House for consideration.

The drama was immense, as this coalition proved our strength in vote after vote and reconsideration after reconsideration as we held firm together, across party lines. Through it all, we stood tall for all our constituents.

This is why I got into public service in the first place -- to create bipartisan, common-sense solutions to make Arizona a better place. Tonight, we actually accomplished that on the floor of the Arizona Senate. After seven years in the minority, losing vote after vote, it was a revelation to be part of a bipartisan moderate majority adopting good amendments, and voting for good budget bills that pass.

This is the type of work the people of Arizona have been waiting for -- we put the partisan games aside to do what is right. I hope and believe that this is a glimpse of a better political future for our state.

Have a wonderful evening. I'm heading back home to Tucson.

Thanks for your faith in me as your Senator.

Steve
Steve Farley
Senator, District 9, Tucson

I'm thankful for and proud of ALL 13 Democratic senators (especially the one who represents me, Ed Ableser) as well as the five Republican senators (listed above) who did the right thing today. I should mention that most of the bills passed on Third Read by at 19-11 margin. The 19th vote came from Michele Reagan (R-Scottsdale).

Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts noted and thanked those who did the right thing this evening, both on azcentral.com and facebook. Of course, Roberts has consistently disrespected elected Democrats in the legislature as having no significance, even as far as being quoted in the Guardian (UK) (just after last fall's general election):

The Republican advantage in the senate shrank to 17-13, giving Democrats some muscle in looming fights over Medicaid expansion and the state's much-criticised immigration laws.

However, in a tight vote, the surviving Republican senators on Wednesday promptly dumped their president, Steve Pierce, whom some had blamed for the senate's failure to pass additional bills against illegal immigration.

They replaced him with the harder-line Andy Biggs, reflecting an ideological split between moderates and conservatives. Moderates gained some leverage with the election of John McComish as majority leader and Adam Driggs as majority whip.

"Biggs' win suggests that the ideologues will run amok at the Capitol next year. However, the wins of McComish and Driggs suggest that some see the value in a more balanced crop of leaders, so there is hope yet," wrote Laurie Roberts, an Arizona Republic columnist.

She doubted pragmatic Republicans would be able to restrain their more radical colleagues. "Why … do I feel like de-kookification just took a major hit?"

Recall that Ms. Roberts was among the journalists expressing the most emphatic (and certainly hyperbolic) indignation over the strong stand Legislative District 26 Democratic legislative candidates took against Republican Jerry Lewis in the 2012 general election.

Should we ask Ms. Roberts how much more easily tonight's outcome would have been if the Senate had 18 Republicans and only 12 Democrats.

But I digress.

Let's close with some feedback from chief kook/tea party activist Wes Harris who expressed his "appreciation" for the stand the rebel Republicans took.

“Not one of them deserves the position they occupy. Sorry, but expansion of Medicaid just creates huge budget deficits and benefits no one, least of all the, so called, poor. We will spend 2.5 Billion to get back 10 cents on the dollar from Washington...why is Washington involved anyway. It is totally unconstitutional.”

Harris left this comment on Roberts' facebook post (linked above). I then posed this question for him, "Wes, how in the world can you even say that Medicaid expansion "...benefits no one, least of all the, so called, poor." Do you have even the most minute grasp on reality?

Not surprisingly, Harris chose not to answer the question.

Another person posed this for him, "last time I checked SCOTUS ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional. So Wes how can a law be unconstitutional when the SCOTUS ruled otherwise...?" No response from Harris.

Isn't it wonderful that Wes Harris is such a reliable foil? He has, after all, made so many off-the-wall statements, not to mention that he is the first named plaintiff in the GOP lawsuit that challenged the legislative district maps.

Anyway, that's the view from where I sat to observe Thursday's drama in the Arizona Senate.

At the moment, it appears the budget bills will be on House Speaker Andy Tobin's desk when that chamber reconvenes on Tuesday. All of the work it took to get the budget (and Medicaid expansion) through one chamber will begin anew next week. And since there are twice as many Members of the Arizona House, it's fair to say the process will be at least as complicated as it was this week in the Senate.

State Budget Sausage Factory update

There was plenty of buzz (activity) at the state legislature on Wednesday, mostly in the Senate but complete resolution is still unlikely to take place until next week.

The Senate Appropriation committee hearing took place regarding the budget bills as expected. All of the bills passed out of that committee, most with a 6-3 straight party line vote, including the elections ominous bill.

The K-12 bill, SB 1487, vote was 5-4 with Republican Kelli Ward voting with the three Democrats (Pancrazi, Tovar and Cajero Bedford).

The General Appropriation bill, SB 1486, passed out of committee with a 7-2 vote, Cajero Bedford voting Aye with the Republicans.

Only two of the bills, SB 1483 and 1484, are currently scheduled for floor debate (Thursday).

State Sen. Steve Gallardo (D-Maryvale) remarked this evening:

Senate Democrats' only leverage is to refuse a vote on Medicaid expansion. A budget that does not properly fund education, ignores [dramatically underfunds] Child Protective Services, gives $1.5 million to Arpaio or [and] allows voter suppression bills to move forward does not deserve Medicaid expansion.

Now, a perspective posed to me this evening provided key insight on what Biggs's scheme is about.

The election bills introduced earlier in the session (and bundled together in the new elections bill) -- to provide criminal penalties for assisting voters in delivering their signed and sealed early ballots and for throwing voters off of the Permanent Early Voting List -- are clearly intended to provide structural mechanisms in law for the GOP to regain the supermajority they "enjoyed" in 2011-2012.

The budget bills, being in many ways close to what Democrats have said they wanted over the last few months are being presented together as a package with the elections bill as the major bait to get them to go along to enact those voting provisions that will grease the skids for regaining -- and making virtually permanent -- the GOP supermajority.

We must clearly and in a no nonsense way assert to all Arizona senators, Democrats and Republicans, that we will not sit by and allow them to sell out Arizona's future in that way.

Consider than in 1860 (153 years ago) nearly 13 percent of the people living in the United States were officially (LAWFULLY, for crying out loud) living in SLAVERY (3.95 million people). According to recent figures,

In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty.

In Arizona, the percentages are even higher. Why is that? Is it because 20 percent of American children are too lazy to work enough to feed, clothe and house themselves properly? Bullshit.

Do I even have to make the argument that those who have been controlling public policymaking in Arizona have pursued an agenda that has driven jobs out of our state?

This can -- and WILL -- change as legislative Democrats stand solidly united for state priorities that properly fund education, child welfare and SUSTAINABLE economic development.

The key, as voters, activists and Precinct Committeemen is to make it clear to those who represent you in the state legislature that you no longer accept the learned helplessness that has been the Democratic brand at the Capitol for at least the last twenty years.

Rise UP! THE time is NOW.

There should be more to report on Thursday evening.

Another bathroom analogy...

So, at the Arizona Legislature, it looks like somebody told leaders in both chambers that it was time to s*it or get off the pot. After enduring a snail's pace for more than a month, both chambers are now scrambling to accomplish the main task they face every year -- passing the budget which authorizes operation of state government agencies as it establishes policy priorities.

As noted earlier (Tuesday late afternoon), ten budget bills and an ominous (omnibus) elections related bill were introduced in the state Senate. I learned later that discussions were also taking place in the House but no bills have been posted to the legislature's website from that chamber yet.

Sen. Steve Farley (D-Tucson) sent out one of his weekly "Friends O'Farley" email reports that provides a good summation of the situation. He was kind enough to allow me to share his report with you. Normally, I would only cite excerpts, but his analogy is both apt and entertaining, so here is the whole report:

I believe I previously shared with you my analogy of the legislature as a middle school. That analogy is particularly apt as we approach approving a budget, as we began to do this morning.

Just like 7th and 8th grades, for the last few days rumors of all kinds have run rampant, cliques have formed and broken, fights have broken out then healed almost as quickly, and adrenaline is reaching a peak. Huge lines in the sand are easily crossed and then forgotten, reputations are made and then broken, and hope and fear fight over the same space in our consciousness.

The Medicaid restoration has heightened the stakes dramatically this year, so this next couple of weeks is really gonna be something to witness.

Yes, the logjam of the past couple of months is finally broken, and the end is in sight. This may be due to the Governor's threat to veto all bills until progress is made, or perhaps due to today being the day legislators' per diem reimbursement is slashed, but either way the result is welcome after weeks of stagnation.

Here's how it is going down so far, subject to change at any moment:

Ten separate budget bills--covering different aspects of the budget--were introduced by special dispensation of the Senate Rules Committee today. This is a surprise in and of itself, since the previous assumption was that budget would start in the House, given President Biggs's declaration weeks ago that he would not let Medicaid get a vote on the Senate floor.

None of these bills (SB1483-1492) include the Medicaid restoration. However, the general understanding is that one of them will be amended (by a Republican) during Committee of the Whole on Thursday to include the Governor's restoration plan (with no language against Planned Parenthood), and there are more than enough bipartisan votes to pass it.

Thus amended (and with other amendments to improve the current language of other bills), the package will be third read and sent out of the Senate late Thursday/early Friday and sent to the House, where--barring unforeseen glitches--it will likely be further amended and returned to the Senate for final approval, then passed to the Governor for signature.

The House seems to have enough votes to pass Medicaid as well, but Speaker Tobin is still trying to push an alternative of sending it to the voters (costing another $8 million in taxpayer money to do so). There does not appear to be support for that alternative. The Governor's plan has a strong chance of making it through, particularly given the momentum that would come from the package passing through the Senate with more bipartisan votes than necessary.

That's the plan on Medicaid. The rest of the budget is a bit more checkered. While most of us assumed that any budget coming out of the Senate would be way too conservative for Democrats to consider, the bills before us today, while they contain flaws, are in many ways surprisingly reasonable, and almost matches the Governor's budget proposal from earlier this year. Despite their problems, these bills don't emulate the slash-and-burn budgets of recent years.

They fund the inflation factor for K-12 education ($82 million this year) for the first time in years (admittedly after the legislature lost a court case to that effect) and there is funding for the UofA medical school and updating the ancient computers in the Department of Education. On the other side, Performance Funding remains. This has the possibility of rewarding rich schools while punishing poor ones, but it is pushed off into next year at which point the formula will be finalized and hopefully fixed, if that is possible. Also, the statutory formulas for classroom supplies and computers are eliminated, as is the School Facilities Board formulas. Adult Ed is not funded, either.

CPS funding is increased, but not to the extent needed. For instance, Emergency and Residential Placements for kids who need to be removed from dangerous homes is scored at less than half of what the Governor says we need, and this could set up more terrible situations wherein kids are housed in offices for days on end -- we have to protect those kids who count on us for their safety.

There will be amendments offered by both Republicans and Democrats to fix many of these shortcomings, but it remains to be seen how many will be adopted. It could well be that I and others will be voting in favor of the Medicaid bill, but against many of the other bills that do more harm than good.

Another little kicker today was the late reintroduction of a series of Senate elections bills that were held in the House. These bills would collectively have the effect of reducing participation in Arizona elections and should be resisted at all costs. Thankfully for democracy, I have reason to believe that this package will not make it to the Senate floor. I will, as always, watch carefully just in case I am surprised. This is, after all, the season of surprises in the Legislature.

I will send you a brief update late Thursday or early Friday to let you know how this all shakes out here at Washington Street Junior High.

Thanks for your faith in me as your Senator.

Tuesday evening was also the monthly meeting of LD26 Democrats. Besides inspiring presentations by 2014 candidates Felecia Rotellini (Attorney General) and Nancy LaPlaca (Corporation Commission), two of the three LD26 legislators (Sen. Ed Ableser and Rep. Juan Mendez) provided updates.

Ableser's update was consistent with Farley's write up. Speaking later with the other LD26 lawmaker, Andrew Sherwood, I learned he was busily working on related meetings and discussions regarding the state budget.

The biggest takeaway I got from each of the updates was the importance of Democrats standing firm and together this week.

The scenario I described on Monday evening for the Senate is similar to how things could play out in the House. Depending, that is, on the degree to which Democrats stand together in that chamber.

Sherwood thinks the opportunity for Democratic lawmakers to be real players in this year's budget is unprecedented. That might be overstating the situation a bit, but they (Democrats in the current, 51rst Arizona Legislature) certainly have far more leverage than in the 50th.

Recall that in the 50th Legislature, the GOP enjoyed a supermajority. Said supermajority allowed them to cause quite a bit of havoc, not the least of which was the failed effort to decapitate the Independent Redistricting Commission.

Nevertheless, the long used strategy by GOP leaders to buy a few Democratic votes (examples described in Monday's post) will not work if the Dems in each chamber stay unified. Long-time readers may also recall now imprisoned former lawmaker Richard Miranda. I cited him as an example of questionable testimony before the AIRC, when he claimed that a 70 percent Hispanic voter majority was necessary for Voting Rights Act compliance.

A 70 percent majority would make a lawmaker like him virtually untouchable in either a primary or general election. And if there is so little chance for such a lawmaker to lose an election, there is practically no way for the Democratic caucus to pressure him into standing together.

And a caucus that doesn't stand together... well, as Ben Franklin famously said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

The stakes in this particular political situation are not quite as stark. But make no mistake, if the Democrats fail to remain united, the consequences for the entire state will be more grim. Do Democrats representing districts with Minority voters in the majority want to enrich themselves or do they want to give the voters they represent the opportunity to have a voice in public policy decisions in our state?

Standing together, they (along with the more sane Republicans) can kill the Elections Ominous bill. Among the sinister provisions of that bill, Michele Reagan's bills to throw voters off of the Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) and making it a felony for activists to collect and deliver signed and sealed (and therefore NOT tampered with) early ballots to polling places or county elections offices.

As I understand it, there is no uncertainty among policy analysts that the intent of such bills is to suppress minority voter rights. At minimum, such a bill would be subject to court challenge even if the US Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (decision expected next month on that issue). Court challenges mean -- at minimum -- sinking large amounts of taxpayer funds into attorney fees.

Anyway, I digress.

Social media is a wonderful thing. Make no mistake, Arizona's Democratic members of the 51rst Legislature most certainly need to stand united. In doing so, we will see the first real benefit result from the work done by the AIRC in drawing the new legislative maps. It will most assuredly piss off David Cantelme and his band of misfits (Wes Harris et. al. as the plaintiffs who challenged the legislative map in federal court). But I direct your attention to recall what they tell people who can't take a joke.

Politics is not for the faint of heart. We are NOT faint of heart.

So, for the moment, kudos to Steve Farley and Ed Ableser in the Senate, as well as their colleagues. And kudos to Juan Mendez, Andrew Sherwood, Chad Campbell (House Minority Leader) and the rest of the House Democratic Caucus.

Keep up the good work.

-----

By the way, apparently, on the Capitol lawn, Medicaid expansion supporters will rally this morning at 11 -- followed at noon by a rally, same location, by expansion foes.

About that stuff hitting the fan...

As noted in my blog post last night, the Arizona Senate has introduced a series of budget bills (SB 1483 through SB 1492) today along with a bill with the short title "Elections: Omnibus," SB 1493. I will henceforth refer to it as "Elections, Ominous."

I truly hope Senate Democrats stick together on this because it's bound to be a huge mess otherwise.

Craig McDermott, blogging at Random Musings has already posted about these bills.

Apparently, the Senate Appropriations committee has a hearing scheduled for these bills tomorrow morning (Wednesday, May 15, 11 am)

At first glance, I'm not certain that Biggs has failed to get his 16 votes from Republican members of his caucus because McComish is a sponsor of all 10 budget bills as well as the elections bill; Driggs is a sponsor of all but one of the bills.

If McComish and Driggs are, in fact, playing ball with Biggs on the budget and the elections: ominous bill, but no other Republicans are, then Biggs only needs to pick off two Democratic votes.

I will keep my ear to the ground and post later tonight if I learn anything further.

Arizona UPRISING! -- S**t may hit the fan at the Capitol tomorrow! UPDATED 12:40pm 5-14-13

A reliable source familiar with what is going on in the Arizona Senate has informed the Arizona Eagletarian that some underhanded dealings are likely in the works regarding the state's fiscal year 2014 budget. The dubious machinations may be revealed as early as tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday this week.

Here's the scenario as it was set forth to me earlier this evening:

Senate President Andy Biggs, who has been declaring all along that he is dead set against the Medicaid expansion, will tomorrow (or Wednesday) have a budget bill (or bills) for members to vote on. The budget will likely look very much like a Tea Party austerity budget with notable exceptions.

There are apparently as many as five Republican state senators not playing ball with Mr. Biggs.

Without those five votes, Biggs has to come up with Democrats to support his budget bill(s).

Scuttlebutt has it that Biggs has been meeting with Senate Minority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor (D-South Phoenix) and Assistant Minority Leader Linda Lopez (D-Tucson) and a handful of other Democrats to do some wheeling and dealing to peel off enough of the opposition to get his bills passed.

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.

However, it should not be difficult for any political reporter to recognize how this kind of thing can easily take place, in any Democratic legislative district.

There are possibly as many as six Democratic votes in the Senate that Biggs will target for this clandestine operation. But the two top Dems in the Senate are pretty much a lock as to with whom Biggs is working to make deals.

It may be worth noting that overall, the Arizona Senate has 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Biggs needs 16 votes to send any Senate bill to the House or House bill to the Governor. Seventeen minus five is twelve. So, Biggs has to pick up at least four Democratic votes to make his plan work.

Oh, and as to Medicaid expansion, everyone outside the legislature expects Biggs to oppose it. He has said so on several occasions. However, the scenario described to me had Biggs including Medicaid expansion in his budget bill(s) with the very strong expectation that it would be stripped out in the House.

Despite House Speaker Andy Tobin reportedly being open to passing the expansion, my source says that's not a lock and there are several ways he can justify withdrawing any support people might expect him to be ready to offer at this stage.

Now, I realize this is speculation. But this scenario should provide fodder for reporters and other Capitol watchers to ask pointed questions to verify to what degree this matches what Biggs has in the works.

And it should be fair warning to those concerned about late night deals -- done without public scrutiny, right before the regular legislative session ends -- that put Arizona taxpayers at risk for major financial trouble. Think Alt-Fuels debacle.

I direct your attention to the poignant explanation of the three financial scenarios the General Fund now faces regarding Medicaid expansion.


Which option do you think would be best for Arizona?

The main phone number for the Arizona Senate is (602) 926-3559 or toll-free (800) 352-8404.

UPDATE

Craig McDermott at Random Musings has additional insight as well as an indication the Senate Rules committee will meet this afternoon to consider authorizing late introduction of budget and medicaid expansion related bills. The most important insight in Craig's post may be:

Based on what I've seen of the Senate Ds, however, they don't want any sort of "aiding and abetting" of the tea-publicans' attack on society to be part of their legislative legacy.

Especially those who will be involved in a primary next year, whether for a return to the Senate or for another office.

Especially2 when there are doubts about whether any deals that individual Senate Democrats work out will survive in the House. 

While there may be some individual senators who feel the tug of temptation, when the smoke from this clears, the caucus will be standing united in their support of the Democratic values of families, education, healthcare.

Some will just have gritted teeth.

Might Arpaio and Maricopa County Republicans be starting to freak out?

Respect Arizona, the committee organized to recall Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, was out with volunteers at numerous locations today throughout Maricopa County collecting signatures.

As if they didn't have anything constructive to do with their time, Arpaio supporters, including notable Tempe whack job Ann Heins did their best to disrupt the effort, but failed.

Ms. Heins, who at times seems incapable of exercising appropriate filters on what comes out of her mouth, was captured on a brief video today. Notice that at the beginning of the clip, a volunteer is explaining to Heins that she is not welcome to interfere with the collection of signatures for the recall. As soon as she recognizes she's being recorded on video, she launches into an explanation of her facetious alternative petition.

The industrious Ms. Heins has a clipboard... and a petition. And she says her petition "is better than your petition." Why? Well, her petition is to give citizens and non-citizens free food, iPhones, medical care, cars, and housing.

I say she's industrious because in addition to an apparently successful (not that I have any way of verifying) real estate business, she ran an aborted campaign for election to the Tempe City Council in 2011; is apparently active in the Tea Party (and had a campaign related group on freedomworks.org); and also in 2011 found time to be an all around P.I.T.A. at hearings and business meetings conducted by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. At the hearing in Mesa, she was among a handful of people handing out flyers before the meeting with some kind of false statements on copies printed with a heading pilfered from the AIRC website.

From two witnesses to Heins' exploits today, this is what I understand took place:

While gathering signatures at the library this seemingly sweet lady came with her petition. She immediately began yelling at me that my petitions were invalid and she was "calling the sergeant". Her group she told us was petitioning to give all US and non US citizens free food, iPhones, medical care, cars and free housing. She told us her petitions were better then our petitions, that she had every right to be there and when her phone rang in the middle of her stump speech she stated "that's the police.". Mind you this was all within the first minute of her walking up. I agreed "absolutely" she had every right to be there and went about my business. She never approached anyone to sign her petition but as soon as someone was signing for me she began yelling at the petitioner that her petition was better. One petitioner finally turned to her and said "Stop talking to me please", gave her the international symbol for talk to the hand and finished signing. This went on for a short while before security came out. Security told this seemingly sweet lady that she could be there but not to harass the library patrons. This dear woman told the female security guard "You're gay!"! Later while talking with a library official this sweet lady continued berating the security guard and the police were in fact called. The lady was told to leave and if she returned she would be arrested for trespassing. The entire time I kept getting signatures. The strategy was to cause a ruckus thus discouraging people from signing. It didn't work, I had more people sign this week than last week and registered two more voters.

The next person who witnessed Heins' childish behavior wrote this:

The police were called... First a woman [pretending to be] asking for signatures on a petition asking for free healthcare, cell phones, on & on for anyone crossing the border. She was yelling & interfering as one of our people was trying to get a signature. The woman signing told her she wasn't interested & to go away. The officer at the library witnessed the discussion & asked the woman to back off. She then talked to her a ways away & the woman said "You're gay". Another policeman was called & she [Heins] ultimately was banned from the Library for a year. 

The friend who took the pic posted above and who shared the video with me also told me that Tempe Library security advised him that Ann Heins has been banned from that facility for one year and that if she enters the property again, she will be arrested and charged with trespassing.

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Republicans sure have some doozies helping their (and perhaps inadvertently, our) cause.

Why, really, does the Goldwater Institute hate Clean Energy?

On May 7, Goldwater Institute staffer Byron Schlomach published a story titled Time to End the Costly Renewable Energy Mandate.

Since Schlomach's piece is full of, at best, half-truths, I am compelled to set the record straight.

First of all, we have to understand the perspective both Schlomach and his sources come from. Seattle Times economics columnist Jon Talton, in his blog, the Rogue Columnist, describes Goldwater Institute thus:

Goldwater's conclusions and talking points bear a close resemblance to those of think tanks seeded in virtually every state in the 1980s and 1990s by "conservative" money. They are intended to look like grassroots local organizations. In fact, they are part of the — let's put on a more precise definition — vast right-wing infrastructure. Together with Fox "News," talk radio and organizations such as ALEC, they turned formerly competitive states red, red states more extreme and even hold great power in many supposedly blue states. ALEC, you will recall, writes reactionary corporatist legislation to be passed, as is, in states throughout America. (emphasis mine)

Talton illuminates the situation further:

The trouble is that the "Goldwater" Institute is not a think tank as conventionally understood, an organization where scholars pursue research with open minds and produce material that is vigorously peer reviewed (think The Brookings Institution). Instead, it is an advocacy organization such as the NRA or the Sierra Club.

Next, consider the Beacon Hill Institute, Schlomach's first named source. Its director, David G. Tuerck, long has been in bed with the fossil fuel industry. Additionally, Beacon Hill's funders (Castle Rock Foundation and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation) are closely tied in with ALEC and numerous other very conservative groups, including the John Birch Society (see Talton's description of so-called think tanks seeded in many states by conservative money, above).

Now, what about Schlomach's claims? 

Beacon Hill estimates that in 2025 the ACC mandate will cost Arizonans between $239 and $626 million and from 1,500 to 4,100 jobs, with electricity prices 4 to 10 percent higher than otherwise.

Yet, Arizona’s Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST) is one of the lowest in the U.S. and in the West. Colorado and California already get 20% of their electricity from clean energy, while Arizona now is only at 2%.

Schlomach cites Beacon Hill's "estimates," but shows absolutely NO basis for those estimates. Up to $626 million, he says, seemingly pulling that number out of his... hat -- that Arizona’s REST will cost consumers extra just in 2025. Already, annual fuel cost for Arizona Public Service varies by as much as $315 million from year to year. That’s the fuel bill for one utility for one year. How much does the price of sunshine vary from year to year?

Back to the question of fuel cost. APS’ fuel bill has gone up and down dramatically. Right now, in Arizona one-third of utility generated electricity is from natural gas. Given the price volatility for natural gas, we are already at serious risk for increased electricity costs.

Consider also, the fact that Schlomach fails to acknowledge the dramatic cost reductions already realized over the last couple of years for development of solar generating facilities. Might his ideological bent have anything to do with that tiny little oversight?

Put in perspective, Arizonans spend more than $7 billion/year for electricity, and 20-30% is for fuel costs. That means that every year Arizonans spend $2-3 billion for coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel. Ninety percent of those dollars leave Arizona rather than recirculate among our workers and local businesses. Meanwhile, the cost of developing solar generating capacity has dropped 70% in the last five years.

Solar generated electricity completely displaces those direct costs for fossil and nuclear fuels. Further, external costs to society for the harmful effects of fossil fuel usage completely disappear, since there is no pollution, no toxic waste. Best of all, no future risk due to potential commodity (fossil fuel) shortages.

In a sideways manner, the Goldwater piece highlights a common sense approach to electricity costs: use of life-cycle analysis. In other words, count all the costs that can be counted, including mining and transporting fuel, emissions control, pollution costs and decommissioning.

Schlomach suggests that the carbon intensity of constructing solar generating facilities is higher than for coal. 

But there’s more to consider than just costs. Renewable technologies reduce carbon emissions, but the construction and decommissioning of renewable energy facilities produces more carbon than coal and gas facilities. The carbon advantage accrues from the production of electricity.

How exactly would construction and "decommissioning" of renewable energy facilities be more carbon intensive than doing the same thing with coal and gas facilities?

On its face, that is an amazingly absurd claim. Schlomach claims to be an economist. Why does he make such absurd claims with little or no data to support them? Maybe because they are nothing more than wild ass guesses based on extreme right-wing ideology?

Another thing Schlomach, when pushing so-called “free market” fixes, fails to tell anyone is that from the beginnings of centralized electricity generating, back in the early 20^th Century, markets were regulated -- not "free." And regulated for good reason – to keep utilities from exercising the power that naturally comes with monopolies. 

Our country's roots are firmly planted in capitalism and the free market system; yet economic regulation has been, and in all likelihood will continue to be, necessary to remove barriers and distortions that impede competition and to assure the greatest degree of social benefit within the system. The scope and direction of regulation, however, tends to expand and contract over time with shifts in economic conditions, prevailing ideology and market characteristics. 

For decades, the accepted belief has been that the public interest is best served with an electric industry comprised of franchised public utility monopolies that are subject to comprehensive regulation. That view has been challenged in recent years, and as a result, the electric industry is at a crossroads. It is appropriate that before debating how the industry should be structured in the future, we should look at the reasons for regulating the electric industry in the first place. Abraham Lincoln once counseled, "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it."

The early years of the electric industry were chaotic. Cities often had competing electricity suppliers, some providing alternating current and some direct current. For instance, in Chicago in the late 1800s, 29 franchises had been granted to electricity providers. (emphasis added)

As recently as the year 2000, we saw what resulted when California deregulated its electricity markets. Rates for small businesses and residential consumers skyrocketed. In the heat of the summer, they experienced widespread rolling blackouts. Is THAT what Arizonans want their summers to be like?

When using full life-cycle analysis, solar beats coal every time. When you consider the volatility of fuel costs and the ramifications of pollution, solar makes the most sense.

Goldwater Institute’s fossil-fueled donors may hate it, but Arizonans have many reasons to love solar.