Who is the bigger threat, our "friend" or our "enemy"?

We have heard an awful lot lately from the Bush Administration and in the media about Iran's nuclear program, which is still in its infant stages. What did not get wide media attention, however, was the recent poll from Pakistan showing that Osama Bin Laden has a higher public approval rating than U.S. War on Terror-ally General Pervez Musharraf, the current leader of that country. Even worse, Bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan is five times that of U.S. President George Bush, whose approval rating is just 9% in Pakistan. So while the U.S. government and media keep their eyes on Iran, a country that had nothing to do with September 11 and which is still several years away from possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran's neighbor, Pakistan, is already a nuclear power, and has become a hotbed of Al-Qaeda and Taliba activity. Should we be scared?

If you're over 25, and were raised in Arizona, you'll appreciate this

For a change of pace, here is something non-political:

What's Congress up to?

This week the House and Senate both voted to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Not only does the reauthorization continue a program that has reduced the rate of uninsured children in Arizona from 25% to 15%, but it will cover an additional 4 million children nationwide (and 86,000 in Arizona) who do not currently have health insurance. The Senate passed the proposal by a veto-proof margin, but the House appears a few votes shy of the votes needed to override President Bush's promised veto. Bush wants to shrink the rolls of children insured by the program, although he claims his tax credit proposal would cover 500,000 new kids with health insurance (an eighth of what the bill that passed Congress would do).

So what else is Congress up to? Moving a bill that would create an airline passengers bill of rights, seeking to remedy the wave of passengers stuck on the tarmack inside their plane during weather delays. Beefing up enforcement at the Food and Drug Administration. And bills have been introduced, but are not yet moving, that would restore cuts made in 2005 to child support enforcement. Some Senators and Representatives in the last Congress, mostly ones who claim to be big on "family values," thought it was a good idea to cut funding from child support enforcement. While I understand Republicans have long considered themselves fiscal conservatives, I thought they were also big supporters of enforcing the law. I guess when it's deadbeat dads, that whole law enforcement thing flies out the window. Former AZ Congressman J.D. Hayworth defended the cut to child support enforcement, saying they were only cutting administrative expenses. This rationale is true - if you consider the entire child support enforcement program administrative. After all, the money pretty much goes to "bureaucrats" sitting in an office somewhere, but child support enforcement isn't like city cops. They don't find deadbeat parents by walking a beat. But they do manage to keep families out of poverty and off of welfare, and studies show that for every dollar of federal, state, and local money spent on child support enforcement, $4.58 in child support gets collected that wouldn't otherwise. To me that not only sounds like good family values, but good fiscal policy too.

And why require people to have auto insurance?

I've often felt that just as people are required to have auto insurance in our society in order to drive, everyone should be required to have health insurance to breathe. It works that way in most industrialized countries in the world. But a new initiative would amend the Arizona constitution to prohibit the state from ever mandating that people buy health insurance, or buy certain types of health insurance. As I sat last night in a soup and salad restaurant noticing America's obesity epidemic (I know some might consider that an ironic place to notice America's obesity epidemic, but it's amazing how unhealthy salad becomes when you load it with ranch dressing or end it with an all-you-can-eat ice cream bar), I realized that a major part of why other societies (Canada, Australia and New Zealand, western Europe) have national health care and we don't is our rugged individualism. Whoever is responsible for paying for our health care is going to try to keep the costs down, whether it is private HMOs or the government. And if government pays for our health care, the fear is that next they will tell us we can't smoke or eat fast food. And that's just down right un-American!

Can't we all just Move On?

I can't say I am an active member of Move On. I used to get their e-mails, but they soon cluttered up my inbox, constantly asking me to tell my Senator or Congressman yet again what I felt about the same issue.

That said, I think Move On has done some great media over the years, and if nothing else, the past couple weeks, they sure have generated plenty of earned (i.e. free) media for their organization. They take out one newspaper ad and next thing they are all over the news. Talk about amplifying your message. The U.S. Senate even voted 72-25 to condemn the now infamous ad referring to General David Petraeus as General Betray Us because they feel he is misleading Americans and painting a false picture of success in Iraq.

Was the language inflammatory? Perhaps. Is it covered by the First Amendment? Absolutely, just like the equally inflammatory rhetoric from the right. But does anybody see some hypocracy here? (Imagine that in politics!) After all, those crying loudest about the Petraeus ad are the Bush Administration and a handful of their loyalists - the same people who themselves questioned the loyalty and patriotism of anybody opposing the invasion of Iraq, even if the critics were retired Generals such as Wesley Clark or Joseph Hoar.

Two event announcements...and I'm leaving for a few days

First, this blog will be un-manned for a few days as I attend a conference in Baltimore for a few days. However, I wanted to inform everyone of a couple of events going on that you may be interested in if you want to get more involved in what's going on in our state.

First, for those of you in the Valley of the Sun, there is a campaign going on to create competitive political districts for our legislature and Members of Congress. They are having a soiree at the Clarendon Hotel at 3rd Avenue and Clarendon (just south of Indian School) on October 4. For more information, contact me. Why is this important? Well, have you checked out the partisan bickering in our Congress or Legislature recently? Most of these folks represent bullet-proof Republican or Democratic districts that were drawn to elect these people and nobody else. So it's time to redraw the lines and open up the public discussion. You may remember we tried doing this back in 2000. That effort was not as successful, because it created legal language to guide the drawing of the districts from which we elect our leaders that had many components: keeping together communities of interest (whatever that means), making districts compact, assuring adequate minority representation, etc. This new ballot initiative keeps most of those requirements, but makes politically competitive districts (i.e. ones that can elect either Republicans or Democrats) a more important factor.

The second event is in Tucson, and is the Children's Action Alliance Legislative Breakfast. It will look at this past legislative session, what was accomplished, and what was left on the table. It will also look ahead to the next session in January, and how the legislature will deal with a deficit that may be up to $1 billion dollars. For more information, contact Penelope Jacks at 520-795-4199 or by e-mail. Several southern Arizona legislators are expected to be in attendance.

The power of a leader's words

Sometimes we think politicians are all talk, all hot air. And while I am a firm believer in the old adage that actions speak louder than words, I know that words are important. Anybody who has ever had the bitter taste of putting their foot in their own mouth knows this.

Hopefully I'm not breaking too many copywrite laws by posting this excerpt from Lee Iacocca's book Where Have All the Leaders Gone:

"Words can inspire. They can lift us to heights we never dreamed possible. Words can also provoke fear and rage. They can pound people into the ground. A true leader always strives to inspire. That doesn't mean he can't express outrage. But he motivates people to act by appealing to the good in their hearts, not the evil in the hearts of others. He motivates people with possibilities, not with threats. President Dwight Eisenhower once said, 'You don't lead by hitting people over the head. That's assault, not leadership.' If you want to know how we got to the point of condoning torture, all you have to do is look at the trail of rhetoric from our leader: axis of evil, mushroom cloud, shock and awe, wanted dead or alive, ticking time bombs, enemies of freedom, the forces of darkness and tyranny, you're with us or against us, bring 'em on."

Then there are the words of Robert Kennedy:

Have they learned nothing from the mortgage meltdown?

From Citizens for Tax Justice:

A new short paper from Citizens for Tax Justice examines the debt accumulated under President Bush in light of the Senate Finance Committee's vote to raise the national debt ceiling again. President Bush has added $2.9 trillion to the national debt so far, despite inheriting a balanced budget when he took office in 2001. Since then, Congress has been forced to raise the statutory limit on the total amount the federal government is allowed to borrow four times - in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.
Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation to raise the debt limit a fifth time, to an unprecedented $9.815 trillion, to prevent the federal government from defaulting on its debts and being unable to borrow any more. In contrast, when Bush took office, the debt limit was $5.950 trillion - $2.9 trillion less than the new amount.
For more analysis, read the paper at http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debt0907.pdf.

Finally, a religious left

Several months ago, or perhaps more like a year ago, my partner and I attended a Sunday service at Community Church of Hope in central Phoenix. You may have passed by it on 7th Avenue near Indian School. It is the one with all the rainbow flags. The pastor gave a sermon very different than what I am used to from Presbyterian pulpits, which usually don't talk a great deal about what is going on politically in America (except for the recently deceased Rev. D. James Kennedy from Florida, who was conservative Presbyterian on a mission to reclaim America for Jesus). The Pastor at Community Church of Hope had been a chaplain in the Arizona legislature when he came out of the closet as a gay man. He spoke of how little support he received from a legislature made up largely of the religious right and the secular left. The conservatives in the legislature were unwilling to support a chaplain who was gay, while the liberals didn't like the idea of having a chaplain at all. But as the Christian Science Monitor points out, there is a religious left rising, as evidenced in the way "faith and values" have made their way into the Democratic presidential primary lexicon.

Left and right agree: Bush has eroded our civil liberties too much

Okay, it is not fair to say this is purely left vs. right, just because most political debates in our country today are framed that way, any more than the Arab-Israeli conflict during the Cold War was a matter of communists vs. the west. But the Goldwater Institute, which is generally conservative leaning with a strong libertarian streak, is in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union, generally perceived as being liberal, but again, really they are very libertarian. Both groups agree the Bush Administration has gone too far in restricting the civil rights and liberties of Americans in the past 6 years, through activities like spying on Quakers.

Bad politics for sure...but is it a good idea?

This isn't an issue I hear about from advocacy groups, politicos, or the mainstream media, so thanks to the wonder of having my own blog, I will bring the issue up. Consumer Reports magazine, published without advertising by the non-profit Consumers Union, recently did a test that showed what we've long known, that driving at higher speeds requires a lot more gasoline. Specifically, they tested a four cylinder Toyota Camry with automatic transmission and got 40 miles per gallon cruising at a steady 55 miles per hour (not bad for a midsize with automatic), but at a steady 65 mph, that fell to 35 mpg, and at 75 mph, mileage fell even further to 32 mpg (later reported as 30 mpg). Many decades ago, when we faced an energy crisis, the nation instated a coast-to-coast speed limit of 55 miles per hour to save fuel. Still earlier, during World War II, there was a national speed limit of 35 miles per hour to save fuel for the war effort. Today we are at war again and know so much more about fossil fuels' effects on the environment and climate. Moreover, higher speed limits can result in more highway fatalities, although in areas of rural Arizona, there is very little to hit no matter the speed. We hear talk about hybrids, and some of us talk about having mass transit and walkable neighborhoods, along with inter-city rail. But should we again consider lowering our speed limits (whether by 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 mph) to save fuel, lives, and the planet? Please feel free to vote, and to leave comments.

Senator Craig poll results

By a margin of 5-to-1 (ok, not just a margin, but literally 5-to-1), the voters on this blog said that Senator Craig should not resign, but serve the remaining year (and some change) in his term and let the voters decide on his behavior.

Republican Idaho Congressman slams leaders over handling of Craig

Republican Representative Mike Simpson of Idaho, who has been mentioned as a possible successor to Senator Larry Craig if Craig steps down as planned, slammed Senate Republican leaders for their handling of the Craig incident. Simpson noted the disparity in the way Craig was treated versus many other Republican Senators currently facing ethics problems.

From The Hill:
“I hope I never stub my toe and they throw me under the bus,” Simpson said of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republican leaders. “It kind of makes you wonder what party you want to be a member of.”

“They have people over there [in the Senate Republican Conference] in far worse trouble that they haven’t said a thing about,” Simpson said. Read the full slamming article here.

Universal health care...in Arizona?

A group from Tucson called Healthy Arizona, which has been responsible for past successful ballot initiatives to expand health insurance in our state, is pushing for a universal health care initiative to be on the ballot in 2008. The language of the initiative is expected to be finalized this fall. Meanwhile, in the legislature, House Democratic Leader Phil Lopes (also of Tucson) is continuing to push his plan for universal health coverage. Additionally, Governor Janet Napolitano has begun convening health care stake holders, and plans to introduce some proposal related to health care when the legislature comes back into session next January. Details on what the Governor is planning, as usual, are closely guarded (or more accurately, they are probably still deciding where they want to go). It's a sure bet that Napolitano will aim for something politically safer, and probably more incremental in nature, than Lopes or Healthy Arizona.

The two Napolitanos: Governor of Arizona, and President of Italy

Tecate billboard outcry: are Latinos becoming too PC?

I thought this was a fun blog post I found, and it quotes my former boss, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard of California (and yes, she is Latina - born and raised in LA).

Election day is coming!

Tuesday, September 11, is election day in many cities in Arizona, including Phoenix. Oddly, city elections were September 11 in 2001. Let's hope for a more peaceful day this year. What better way to honor those whose lives were taken by terrorists than to express your voice through democracy?

In Phoenix, several propositions are on the ballot. Proposition 1 would raise the sales tax two-tenths of a percent (costing you two cents extra for every ten dollars you spend) to hire additional police and firefighters. Emergency response times are lagging in the city, and while none of us is eager to raise our already high sales tax (especially since sales taxes hit low-income folks the hardest), we would get our money's worth from Prop 1. Proposition 2 would give a 6% cost-of-living raise (last raise was two years ago) to the City Council and Mayor. Phoenix's hard working City Council gets paid $61,000 currently, or about two-and-a-half times what the Arizona legislature makes (in the early 1990's, the salaries were almost identical). I'm guessing almost none of those equally hard working new police officers and firefighters hired if Prop 1 passes will be making anywhere near this money. Meanwhile, the $88,000 the Mayor of Phoenix earns is just below what Governor Napolitano makes. With Proposition 3, the City is asking something more simple - permission to continue spending money they already have. Proposition 3 does not raise taxes or spend one additional dime of taxpayers' money. But if it fails, it would force the City to cut a third of its budget, which inevitably would affect public safety (like the aforementioned cops and firefighters). Propositions 4-6 are mostly housekeeping measures that have drawn little opposition.

Half of the City's 8 Council Districts have an election, and in three of them there is no incumbent, so we know there will be at least 3 new City Councilpersons after this election, the most newbies on City Council since the district system was created in the early-1980's. Check out the endorsements of the Arizona Republic, or for those of you interested in GLBT issues, look at the endorsements of Echo Magazine.

Senator Craig's resignation necessary?

I had been looking for a new poll question for my blog (feel free to e-mail me when you have ideas). I decided to do something about Senator Larry Craig. For those of you who still don't know, he is the Idaho Republican who entered a guilty plea to disorderly conduct, stemming from allegations he solicited sex in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

Is it fair that Senator Craig was shunned by his colleagues for pleading guilty to a misdemeanor? If it was some other misdemeanor, or if he had been prowling around the women's bathroom, would it have caused his resignation? After all, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana), showed up in the contact lists of a Washington, DC, madame. Where are the calls for his resignation? Perhaps people in Idaho and people in Louisiana just have different expectations of their Senators' behavior. After all, in Louisiana, every elected official is innocent until they find a body. And just to show I am not merely anti-Republican, Senator Ted Kennedy did plead guilty to leaving the scene of a famous auto accident in 1969, a one-car accident in which he was driving and his passenger was killed, which he did not report for several hours. Senator Robert Byrd, the octogenarian from West Virginia, left the scene of an accident, citing an obscure Constitutional provision that prohibits detaining Members of Congress for minor infractions of the law when Congress is in session. And Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana still holds his seat in spite of a bribery investigation that turned up gobs of cash hiding in his freezer.

As I'm sure you can guess, I believe it is better for people to figure out who it is that God made them to be, and if that is homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, asexual, whatever, to accept it, move on, and act on it in an appropriate way. When people try to partition off that portion of their life, well, it ends up coming out in inappropriate ways such as Senator Craig's alleged behavior.

But despite all the calls among his fellow Republicans for his resignation, and the silence of many Democrats who are not eager to defend a Republican Senator with an anti-gay rights voting record, the question arises (no pun intended): was his resignation necessary? Today we finally have one Senator, Arlen Specter (occasional Republican from Pennsylvania), saying that if Craig is telling the truth, he should withdraw his guilty plea, and fight it in court. As usual, not many Republicans are listening to Senator Specter. Senator John Ensign, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose job it is to elect Republican Senators, said Craig's resignation was "best for himself, best for his family, and best for (the Senate)." Presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a "values Republican," had the best quote: that Craig "did us all a big favor by leaving the stage and taking this issue away from further discussion." Yes, so Christian of the Rev. Huckabee (also an ordained pastor) to be thinking of his party's political fortunes rather than the suffering of one person accused, rightly or wrongly, of inappropriate behavior. Heaven forbid the Republicans be forced into a discussion of why they consistently vote against allowing gays and lesbians who want to be who God made them to be, and live a loving life dedicated to a partner to do so, yet they are more than willing to cover up allegations of same-sex sexual harassment by Congressman Mark Foley. Now for a really good display of hypocrisy (if the preceding was not enough), check out this site before they take it down, or watch Sen. Craig's endorsement of Mitt Romney.