This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Here is the July 15 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents. |
Amy Lyn Smith at Electablog of Michigan writes—‘Single-payer healthcare is achievable’ says Cathy Myers, who wants Paul Ryan’s Congressional seat:
Cathy Myers literally lives across the street from Rep. Paul Ryan in Janesville, Wisconsin, so she knows exactly who she’s up against. Not to mention having witnessed his many attempts to wrest healthcare coverage away from millions of Americans just to give the wealthy a tax break.
Healthcare is one of the primary reasons Myers decided to run for Ryan’s seat in Congress, which is up for grabs in 2018. She believes healthcare is a right — and that the healthcare plans supported by Ryan aren’t actually healthcare plans, she says.
Why suggest a healthcare plan that isn’t one? The healthcare plan Paul Ryan proposed is actually a tax break for the very top, and the number of people that were going to be cut out of healthcare was staggering.
The whole point of healthcare is to figure out how to cover people, not how to exclude people.
With every new Republican proposal threatening to deprive millions more Americans of healthcare coverage, now may be the best possible time for Democrats to begin lobbying hard for what would actually help the most Americans: single-payer healthcare.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program, single-payer health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” means a single public or quasi-public agency organizes healthcare financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.
AmberPaw at Blue Mass Group writes—Abysmal voting percentages, the “Rushing 17” and why the ranks of the unenrolled are swelling in Massachusetts:
For a time “The 17″ voted as a block and drew strength from one another, standing up to Thomas Finneran. I worked with them on access to justice issues in 2003-2004. At times one ‘member’ or the other of the 17 was stuck in a leaky office in the basement, or stripped of staff.
As of now, all of them are either in leadership, state senators, or co-opted/beat down with some level of ‘leadership’ position that pays a little more. I do not see any group that works together in the Massachusetts House to have any independence or work for issues that are truly ‘democratic” with capital “D” or small D. Moving ALL “cram it down their throats” alleged discussions of the budget out of public view into Room 328 and eliminating cable coverage of the Massachusetts House helped bludgeon the members into submission in my opinion.
Massachusetts has plenty of house cleaning to do itself, and the abject nature of democratic politics and the so-called Democratic Party in Massachusetts has a lot to do with the abysmal voting numbers and swelling ranks of unenrolled voters. The Massachusetts legislature also voted itself immune to all “Freedom of Information Act” rules, laws, and requests and is largely not subject to procurement oversight. I think all of this is part of why the last 3 Speakers of the Massachusetts House have left under indictment. Too much consolidation of power and too little oversight.
All of this causes me to fondly remember when Markey was a Representative, and after going head to head with the Speaker who dominated the House during his term reportedly famously said, “You can tell me where to sit, you cannot tell me how to vote.” There is a wonderful old campaign video of his [...] He actually had a desk in the hallway and no office for a while, to my recollection at least. So my support for Markey has deep roots:
A staffer at Colorado Pols writes—Gardner, GOP Senate a Picture of Anger and Frustration:
Sometimes the greatest frustrations in life come from the realization that there is no-one else to blame for your own failure. That frustration grows larger when you understand that everyone else sees the same thing.
President Trump and Cory Gardner can make feeble attempts to drag Democrats into their healthcare failure, but it’s common knowledge that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. This spin attempt is even more absurd given the news that Trump apparently had no idea what was happening when the Senate was throwing in the towel on repealing Obamacare. Senate Republicans failed to make any headway on overhauling healthcare because they crafted terrible legislation that would have caused massive harm to tens of millions of Americans. Gardner knows this, which is why he takes the ridiculous approach of insisting that he was undecided on a bill despite standing next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and expressing anger over the legislation’s failure. [...]
Outside of the echo chamber that surrounds Republican Senators, nobody was clamoring for a healthcare bill that would have destroyed protections for pre-existing conditions and made devastating cuts to a Medicaid program that is used by 1 in 5 Americans. As we wrote last month, Republicans didn’t have a messaging problem; they had a math problem.
This entire process badly exposed Cory Gardner as nothing more than a political bomb-thrower with a complete indifference for his constituents and the American public in general. Gardner is a virtuoso at throwing wrenches at Democrats and railing against the policies of the opposing party; indeed, his entire Congressional career is based on complaining about Democrats and Obamacare specifically. But if you ask Gardner to try to craft some legislative solutions—some real, tangible policy ideas—he vanishes into the bushes behind a long string of meaningless phrases.
At the Orange Juice Blog of California, Nancy West writes—Playing Dirty Pool: FFFF/KFI ‘Pool Safety’ Story Attacking Sen. Josh Newman for Hypocrisy Doesn’t Hold Water:
On July 6, the libertarian (and Republican leaning) Friends for Fullerton’s Future (“FFFF”) Blog published a story, authored by its “Mr. Peabody,” which accused State Sen. Josh Newman of hypocrisy in sponsoring SB 442, a law requiring pool owners to limit pool access by implementing multiple barriers of protection for pool safety:
The supposed payoff of the article? That Senator Newman has both a pool and a young child — but uses no pool safety measures. (“Typical liberal,” the story sneered.) The story was then amplified by being featured on KFI’s “John and Ken” show.
The story doesn’t hold water.
We’ll explain why — but first, some background.
State Republicans are desperate to recall Senator Newman — not due to any wrongdoing in office, but just because based on his district he’s the most politically vulnerable of the 27 Democratic Senators giving his party a supermajority in that house. Since libertarian Fullerton City Council member Bruce Whitaker decided to enter the race to replace Newman, the FFFF blog has apparently decided to do its part. [...]
This story is all about timing.
On January 13, 2017, the Newmans purchased an “All-Safe” pool safety net and leaf cover system, which was installed to meet strict ASTM safety codes. (Prior to that time, their infant child was unable to walk or otherwise get close to the pool.) The cover was removed for the first time on July 2nd, 2017.
Prior to January 13, they didn’t have a child safety need — and so the pool would appear to be unprotected. Prior to July 2, they were meeting the child safety need. Then, starting on July 2, they occasionally would take off the cover and swim — as one does with one’s pool.
Eva DeLuna Castro at the Center for Public Policy Priorities’ Better Texas Blog writes—The Latest Legislative Nightmare: Senate Bill 18:
Despite continued population growth in Texas, and more than 130 cities’ and counties’ populations growing at least twice as much as the state average, state lawmakers are looking once again to pass “one size fits none” spending caps that would tie local lawmakers’ hands. Essentially, state lawmakers want to tell local communities that they can only spend according to the state’s average population growth, regardless of whether or not that community is growing faster than the state average.
What’s worse? Senate Bill 18 goes beyond limiting property tax revenue (for more on the other awful cap that focuses on property tax revenue, head here):
Here’s why passing a spending cap that’s based only on the state’s growth is a terrible idea:
- Between 2015 and 2016, Williamson and Fort Bend County populations grew by an estimated 4%.
- The city of Conroe’s population grew by almost 8% in one year; Frisco and McKinney grew by 6% in one year.
- The annual growth of the state’s population as a whole? 1.6%.
Budgets for local cities and counties vary widely across our growing state. It would be nearly impossible to pass a “one-size-fits-all” spending cap at the state level that allows these cities to continue to thrive and respond to the local needs in their own communities. City and county officials’ ability to raise revenue depending on their constituents’ needs – especially in those cities that have their own electric and water utilities – has always been an important factor in giving Texans a choice about what kind of communities they want to live in.
Paul Deaton at Blog for Iowa writes—Trump – Six Months In:
My living memory goes back to Dwight Eisenhower. Our family was not an Eisenhower fan because we were Democrats. At the same time, talk about World War II and his role in the D-Day invasion of France became the subject of child-like war games in the neighborhood. We cut 34 some slack despite his Republicanism.
We began to like him after the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Our family was excited about the prospect of traveling via Interstate Highway because it reduced the amount of time it took to visit our relatives in Illinois, Virginia, Tennessee and Florida.When we visited Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, we drove past Eisenhower’s farm and wondered if he and Mamie were home.
Donald J. Trump is no Eisenhower. He’s not a Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush either. I found plenty to disagree with in Republican presidents but also found some common ground with each of them. It was hard with Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. Despite the atrocities of their presidencies, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, Reagan worked with Mikhail Gorbachev to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and I was willing to give George W. Bush and “compassionate conservatism” a chance before he invaded Iraq post Sept. 11, 2001. No such commonalities exist with Donald J. Trump.
tomaswell at Louisiana Voice writes—FBI a presence in Amite for third time since December; this time to serve subpoenas on Town of Amite officials, others:
The FBI appears to have taken quite a liking to Amite, the parish seat of Tangipahoa Parish and the home town of Gov. John Bel Edwards.
For the third time in the last seven months, federal agents have come calling, this time armed with subpoenas for many of the town’s elected officials, including the mayor, police chief and most, if not all, of the Amite Town Council members.
Sources told LouisianaVoice the list included Mayor Buddy Bel, Mayor Pro Tem Jonathan Foster, council members Neil Carrier and Rose Sumrall, and Police Chief Jerry Trabona, Independence Town Council member Calvin Baptiste, former Roseland Mayor Louis Ruffino and Amite businessman Tom Ed Brumfield.
Two independent sources told LouisianaVoice the FBI is investigating allegation of vote buying in the 2015 statewide election in which John Bel Edwards was elected governor and his brother, Daniel, was re-elected sheriff.
Unconfirmed reports said a judge and an attorney are also under investigation for their alleged participation in the vote-buying.
While it may not be the specific voter fraud that Donald Trump has been alleging—his election was a year later and he claimed illegal voters, not vote-buying—but it has attracted the attention of federal investigators who were said to be looking into claims of widespread distributions of cash for votes on election day.
There was no word on which candidates the cash was supposed to help.
Rosi Efthim at Blue Jersey writes—1 Year Ago Today: Chris Christie at Republican National Convention: “Lock Her Up!”
The scene was the Quicken Loans Arena, downtown Cleveland Ohio. Swing state. It was the second night of the Republican National Convention, and incredibly the arena was more than half empty, though more straggled in for Christie, expecting a show. They got one. The Republican Party, its old guard, its money, its electeds, hadn’t decided what they thought of their new nominee, or they had and they’d decided they didn’t want to be seen cheering him. Of New Jersey’s Republican congressional delegation, only Tom MacArthur showed up to the convention, and only for a few hours. He’d be rewarded later with fundraiser at Trump’s Bedminster club, with a big cash haul. Only a handful of New Jersey’s legislators showed up.
This is one year ago tonight. On the same day, Christie’s eldest son Andrew announced New Jersey’s 51 delegates all for Trump; a perk for the kid.
Christie went full prosecutor for his high-stakes TV moment, Hillary Clinton his victim, pausing dramatically to allow a crowd itchy for an arraignment time to hoist up navy blue TRUMP signs and jiggle flag-stamped neckties and sequined hats in our national colors. LOCK HER UP, they chanted, their pointer fingers slashing the air.
What a difference a year makes. LOCK HER UP was kicked off by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn: “We do not need a reckless president who believes SHE (heavy pronoun emphasis) is above the law.” Now, in real life, Donald Trump is the reckless president that Flynn warned of, and Flynn’s tenure as Trump’s National Security Advisor didn’t even last a month, after he was caught lying to VP Pence about Russians. I mean, if you want to talk about defiance of the law. And Christie, who insulated himself from what his closest underlings are going to jail for, is a (or the) likely unindicted co-conspirator who escaped Bridgegate prosecution.
At Bold Nebraska, this upcoming event is promoted: Save the date:
Join us on Sunday, Aug. 6 at 3:00 p.m. in Lincoln, Nebraska for the March to Give Keystone XL the Boot.
Meet on the North Steps of the Nebraska State Capitol (1445 K St., Lincoln, NE)
Hundreds of Nebraskans, along with Water Protectors and Pipeline Fighters from states near and far, will come together in Lincoln on the eve of the week-long Keystone XL intervenor hearings at the Nebraska Public Service Commission, and march through the streets to send the message that Keystone XL is a threat to our land, water and climate, and not in the public interest. March with us to give Keystone XL the boot! [...]
MIDWEST PIPELINE FIGHTER SUMMIT
scharrison at BlueNC writes—"Not off our coast." Governor Cooper comes out swinging against offshore drilling:
No ambiguity at all in this statement:
“It’s clear that opening North Carolina’s coast to oil and gas exploration and drilling would bring unacceptable risks to our economy, our environment, and our coastal communities—and for little potential gain,” said Gov. Cooper. “As Governor, I’m here to speak out and take action against it. I can sum it up in four words: not off our coast.”
A potential oil spill could decimate North Carolina’s coastal tourism and commercial fishing industries, both major economic drivers for the region. Coastal tourism in North Carolina generates more than $3 billion annually, supporting more than 30,000 jobs.
Boom. What a difference between this man and McCrory, who actually invited Big Oil to set up shop in his own office. Which became the headquarters for the Outer Continental Shelf Governor's Association, who were hell-bent on scattering offshore oil rigs all over the Southeastern seaboard, and allowed industry reps to dominate what were supposed to be public hearings in coastal communities. Just one more reason the voters kicked McCrory to the curb.
Chuck Sheketoff at Blue Oregon writes—The average Oregonian might rightly ask, “The CAT? Why all the fuss?”
Twenty-five cents for every $100 in sales.
That is how much a company in the construction industry with $100 million in Oregon sales would pay under the commercial activities tax (CAT) being discussed in the legislature. Those 25 cents would be paid by the company, reducing the profit passed along to the owners and taxed on their personal income taxes.
Compare that to what that company’s employees are paying. The average individual taxpayer in Oregon pays 24 times that amount — $6 on every $100 of income — in personal income taxes.
Or take the case of an auto dealer with $35 million in retail sales a year. That dealership would pay 24 cents on every $100 in sales, compared to the $6 that the employees pay.
Or consider a retail business with $1 million in sales per year — a sales goal many small business owners on Main Street would love to hit. That business would pay two cents in taxes on every $100 in sales. The average Oregon taxpayer pays 300 times that — $6 — in personal income taxes on every $100 in income.
The average Oregonian might rightly ask, “The CAT? Why all the fuss?”
Cory Allen Heidelberger at Dakota Free Press writes—Jackley Botches Bosworth Prosecution: SD Supreme Court Vacates 6 of 12 Felony Convictions:
Good grief—Marty Jackley can’t even make perjury charges stick on Annette Bosworth.
Yes, yes, the Attorney General’s press release headlines the South Dakota Supreme Court’s upholding of six felony convictions for filing false petitions in the 2014 election, which convictions a hardy corps of South Dakota blog volunteers got rolling back in April 2014. But the rest of the press is headlining the state Supreme Court’s vacation of the felony perjury convictions, accepting the argument from Bosworth’s lawyer that the circulator’s oath that she falsely swore on multiple petition sheets is not part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding or action and therefore does not constitute perjury as defined in SDCL 22-29-1.
The Court acknowledges that the same 2002 law that put the words “proceeding” and “action” in the main perjury statute also created a new statute, SDCL 22-29-9.1, that makes it perjury to lie on a petition oath, which Bosworth did. But if I’m reading the Court’s ruling right, because Jackley charged Bosworth under SDCL 22-29-1 and not SDCL 22-29-9.1, and because the Court rejects the Attorney General’s argument that the Legislature intended the latter statute to expand the range of the former, the Court is throwing out the charges.
In other words, Bosworth lied and broke the law, but not the law that Jackley charged her with breaking.
Jackley did prosecute Bosworth under the correct statute, SDCL 22-11-28.1, for filing a false instrument. The Court blew through Bosworth’s smoke about not forging any signatures and submitting what she honestly thought were “petitions signed by voters nominating a candidate for public office” and sticks with the basic fact that “contrary to Bosworth’s verifications, voters did not sign the petitions in her presence.” The Court reaffirms what observers have said all along about Bosworth’s crime—oaths matter.