This week in progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Let me know via comments or Kosmail if you have a favorite state- or city-based blog you think I should be watching.
Inclusion of a diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement or endorsement of its contents.
At Blue Virginia, lowkell writes—Shutdown Ted Un-Ironically Announcing Campaign in Virginia:
Ted Cruz couldn’t have picked a worse place than Virginia to launch his soon-to-be-failed campaign for president. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that over 80% of Virginians overwhelmingly disapproved of his government shutdown—a political tantrum Cruz still threatens to repeat today. Virginia, home to thousands of federal workers and military personnel, was more affected than any other state by his dangerous antics.
Cruz would happily keep thousands of Virginians from their jobs and paychecks just to show his opposition to affordable healthcare. Meanwhile, in the Lynchburg area alone, there are over 11,000 Virginians languishing without access to quality care thanks to his national right-wing movement against closing the coverage gap.
“Ted Cruz is remarkably tone-deaf to launch his campaign in Virginia, of all places, after engineering the government shutdown that kept thousands of Virginians from their jobs and cost the national economy $24 billion,” said Robert Dempsey, Executive Director of the Democratic Party of Virginia. “His policies are wrong for the Commonwealth and wrong for the middle class, from repealing all corporate income taxes to opposing a living wage and affordable healthcare. Ted Cruz can take his shutdown politics elsewhere—Virginians know better than to take him seriously.”
Ted Cruz is the embodiment of everything wrong with today’s Republicans: all he’s done is oppose and obstruct help for the middle class through his bombastic outbursts and unwillingness to govern. Shutdown Ted is starting off on the completely wrong foot coming to a state disproportionally hurt by his partisan brinksmanship to launch a campaign for more of the same.
More excerpts from progressive state blogs can be found below the orange gerrymander.
At Left in Alabama, countrycat writes—Was Indicted AL House Speaker Mike Hubbard Spying On AG Luther Strange?
Holy cow. We're going to have to change the name of the Alabama Statehouse to "Peyton Place." The more we learn about indicted House Speaker Mike Hubbard's shenanigans in Montgomery, the more soap opera-like the tale becomes.
First, we learned that Hubbard was poormouthing to anyone who would listen that the couldn't make it on his $70k/year salary for his part-time legislative job. That dreadful financial conditions is no doubt what led him to accept a $7500 a month consulting contract from an online charter school company. Coincidentally perhaps, this session's charter school legislation was modified to allow virtual, online charter schools. Surely, that company got better bang for its bucks than the sucker who paid Hubbard for this gig:
In 2012, Abrams hired Hubbard as a $10,000-a-month consultant to help his plastic cup company with sales, even though Hubbard admitted he knew nothing about cups. |
And now the plot thickens. A series of recently-released emails from prosecutors suggests that Hubbard had a mole in the AG's office and didn't trust either the Attorney General or Alabama Republican Party chair Bill Armistead
At
Plunderbund of Ohio,
David DeWitt writes—
Ohio GOP Finds New Way To Backdoor Young People Off Voter Rolls:
When less than half of registered voters actually show up to vote, Ohio Republicans are happy. Voter turnout this past November in Ohio was the lowest it’s been since 2007, with 40.65 percent of eligible voters casting ballots, and Republicans cleaned up.
So Presidential election years bring on The Headache for Buckeye State GOPers. What with all the young people and minority populations showing up to participate in their self-governance, Republicans are inconvenienced with having to worry about appealing to a wide spectrum of voters: Total frekin’ bummer, man.
And they don’t do so well at it, losing the state twice to President Barack Obama, and losing the governorship and a variety of other statewide offices the last time voter turnout went over 50 percent in a non-presidential year, in 2006.
But developing policies that appeal to people beyond their donor class and fanatical base takes work. And, besides, where’s the money in it?
What if, instead, they could backdoor a way to cut off thousands of young people from participating in democracy before 2016? Maybe slip some arbitrary new requirements in a transportation bill, how’s that sound?
At
Democratic Diva of Arizona,
Donna writes—
AZ House Approves the "Lady Money Is Not Real Money" Bill:
Arizona bill SB1318, which requires doctors to pass on medically dubious information about “abortion reversal”, also bans coverage of abortion in private insurance plans, even if a policy holder has purchased an entirely separate rider with her own money which does not sully the pristine money of “taxpayers” – a group that (again) apparently does not include women who use any reproductive health care not directly related to having babies. [...]
Rep. Kelly Townsend, the prime sponsor of the bill, repeatedly reminded the floor that majorities of Americans polled disapprove of taxpayer funding for abortion, which happens to be the exact opposite of what a separate rider purchased by a woman with her own damn after-tax money is. Townsend counts on mainstream America’s discomfort with letting women they perceive to be “slutty” get away with it and how most people don’t have the bandwidth to investigate a constant barrage of anti-choice bullshit claims carefully.
Thus, a woman’s own money magically becomes “taxpayer dollars.” If she does need an abortion, despite having insurance that she pays for herself via premiums and despite being a taxpayer herself, she must scrape together the entire cost of the procedure. That could run anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand dollars, depending upon how early in the pregnancy term it was and what, if any, complications in the pregnancy there were.
At
RI Future.org,
Steve Ahlquist writes—
The dark art of defending domestic abusers’ right to a gun:
When Frank Saccoccio, president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition and Johnston’s assistant city solicitor, introduced himself to the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify against Senate Bill 503, which would prohibit “any individual convicted of domestic violence or subject to a restraining order from possessing a firearm,” he played up the fact that he does the criminal prosecutions for Johnston in district court.
He said that he’s “very familiar with the domestic violence issues and what actually comes in front of District Court…” and implied that this was because of his prosecutorial experience. “I’ll try to give you my perspective,” said Saccoccio, “that I see each and every week in the court system…”
Watching a lawyer walk the line between a job that requires him to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence and a job that requires him to protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners should have been an interesting experience. No one supports the idea of domestic abusers having access to guns, so the intent of this law was generally thought to be a good thing by everyone. Further, prosecutors generally like laws that make prosecuting wrongdoers easier while at the same time protecting victims from further harm. Yet early on Saccoccio made comments that made it appear he had as much sympathy for those accused of domestic violence as he did for those who claimed to be victims, saying, for instance, “A lot of times you take a look at Family Court judges, they are very, very liberal. They like to err on the side of caution.”
This doesn’t seem like something someone interested in prosecuting domestic abusers might say. What lawyer complains when the judge is on their side?
At
Indy Democrat Blog,
Jon Easter writes—
Coats Say No to 2016 Run...Will Bayh Say Yes?:
Dan Coats said today that he will not run for reelection in 2016.
That throws the race wide open for the person that will replace him. Expect a VERY crowded Republican field that will likely include some sitting U.S. Representatives...both Todds (Young and Rokita) and Marlin Stutzman chief among them.
This news also comes a day after some said that Evan Bayh is thinking about potentially trying a comeback. The Daily Kos reports that Bayh simply said that he has no interest in running for his old job, "at this point." That was before Coats decided to retire for a second time. Bayh has tons of campaign cash and would likely raise more.
If Bayh doesn't run, it would make sense for Baron Hill to possibly make a play for the job. He's also been mentioned as a possible candidate for Governor, and he did run for Senate before. I'd be interested to see what Indiana Democrats come forward to run for U.S. Senate if Bayh does not.
The Coats decision to not run makes me wonder if he knows something about Bayh's intentions. While he cited his age in an interview with the Indy Star's Matt Tully, this is, as you may remember, exactly what happened in 1998 when Bayh first took on a run for Senate. Coats decided to "retire" from the Senate at that time rather than take on the very popular Democrat.
At
Blog for Iowa,
Laura Twing writes—
Iowa Lawmaker Gets A Laugh Not In A Good Way:
Today we have the third example in little over a week of how far we are from substantive debate. Republicans brought forth HR 8, encouraging a constitutional amendment to restrict the authority of the federal government. Yesterday, we had the discussion on changing the collective bargaining procedures for teachers. Last week we had discussion about prerequisites for performing abortions.[...]
We get it, that you disapprove of abortion. But making it illegal, or harder to access, doesn’t end it. Doesn’t even lower the numbers substantially. Punitive laws that make no difference to reducing those numbers are not Christ-oriented, just vengeful.
We get it that you hate taxes. Change the debate to focusing on our current and future common needs, not finding arbitrary levels of “low taxes.”
We get it that you want to root out inefficiencies in education. Show us that this is not a backhanded attempt to dismantle public education, by being as vigorous about finding inefficiencies in other areas.
We get it that you don’t like “government.” But there will always be “governing” by some process, and a representative democratic republic is always a better choice than the oligarchy/theocracy that republicans are pushing for, no matter what size it is. Smaller does not equal efficient, period.
At
Appalachian Voices of West Virginia,
Tom Commons writes—
Although industry gets fined, citizens still pay the price:
The crimes of companies that mine and burn coal come with high costs that can’t always be measured in dollars and cents. But that doesn’t mean wrongdoers shouldn’t be held accountable or forced to pay the price.
Dan RiverMajor polluters in our region are starting to see the consequences of their crimes catch up to them. Last month, Duke Energy announced it reached a $102 million plea agreement with federal prosecutors to resolve charges stemming from its coal ash pollution in North Carolina. Those fines cannot be passed on to customers, meaning Duke and its shareholders will take the hit.
But, it’s the communities surrounding Duke’s leaking coal ash sites that have been paying for years, in undrinkable water, air pollution, worry and concern, and illness. The problem might have been avoided had North Carolina’s regulators taken seriously the coal ash pollution or citizens’ urgings to address it.
fc-mtrA similarly troubling story is unfolding in eastern Kentucky, where citizen groups have faced off with the coal industry and the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. There, too, regulators for years ignored corporate misconduct — this time in the form of blatantly falsified water quality reports that covered up pollution from mountaintop removal sites — leading Appalachian Voices and our partners to file suit.
These stories and many others in our region point to the ways that pollution negatively impacts communities at every stage of coal’s life cycle. But more importantly, they underscore the exceedingly important role citizens play in environmental protection.
At
susan the bruce of New Hampshire,
susanthe writes—
Bills, Bills, Bills:
One of the many good things about NH is our unwillingness to frivolously amend the state constitution. Every legislative session numerous amendment bills are filed, and most of them never go anywhere. This week, the House voted that CACR 1 was inexpedient to legislate. CACR would have amended the constitution to stipulate that a 3/5-majority vote would be required to increase taxes or fees, or to authorize the issuance of state bonds.
This is model legislation, from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate funded organization for conservative legislators. ALEC drafts model legislation for its members to try to pass in their own states. CACR 1 was sponsored by Rep. Jordan Ulery, who is the NH State Chair of ALEC. ALEC’s goal seems to be to ensure that taxes are not raised and state legislatures are hamstrung. It is telling that Rep. Ulery couldn’t muster up a single co-sponsor for his bill.
The House voted down HB 350, which would have created a commission to study the impact of the property tax on NH residents, businesses, municipalities, and the economy. The commission would have written a report. Just a report. A non-binding report.
The very idea of this commission was so frightening to the Republican majority that they voted against it 213-143. This is the same party that thinks that eliminating collective bargaining and business taxes is going to entice companies to move to NH. Companies thinking of locating here will be bringing employees—employees who will be interested in the cost of housing, property taxes, and education. NH has the 11th highest housing costs in the country. That the property tax might be a deterrent is apparently not worthy of consideration, especially if you’ve been beating the wrong drum hard and loud for decades. All of our local Republican state representatives voted against the commission.
At
Juanita Jean's of Texas,
Juanita Jean writes—
Get The Hell Outta My Uterus:
I swear on a stack of pancakes that Republican men are too damn concerned about my uterus. It edges on being pornographic.
First they want to make me have babies, then they want to keep me from having babies.
Make up your damn mind, Republican Men, because my uterus ain’t gonna tend to itself, you know.
Republican State Rep. Kim Hammer (consider that fair warning) is menacingly opposed to all taxpayer funded health care or birth control except …
Rep. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, filed HB 1868, under which an unwed mother of one child who is receiving Medicaid benefits would receive reimbursement from the state Medicaid program for the cost of implanting a contraceptive device that is effective for five years or longer.
“Often young people make decisions and they get a sense that they don’t want to make that decision again for a while. We need to give them a little bit of a breather to think about their life decisions that are affecting us as taxpayers,” Hammer said.
|
So, unwed women can’t have birth control that lasts for a year or two but holy saint of hoochy above, they can get free birth control if they’ll have babies according to Mr. Hammer’s schedule. And God forbid that we give her control over her birth … control? It’s Hammer Control, bygawd!
And married women? They need to keep pumping out those babies.
At
Bluestem Prairie,
Sally Jo Sorensen writes—
Buzz Kill? Minnesota Senate ag committee eradicates pollinator protections from state law:
One of the pro-pollinator policy victories of the 2014 legislative session was the inclusion of language defining pollinator-lethal insecticides in Minnesota statute and a ban on labeling and marketing plants and seeds treated with such chemicals as "bee friendly."
The law was hailed as a victory for consumers who want to be able to plant pollinator-friendly habitat without unknowingly killing bees, butterflies and other pollinators. As pollinator populations decline, many Minnesotans hope to create islands of habitat and food for these valuable insects and birds.
Unfortunately, the insecticide industry is fighting back, and it won another battle in the war against bees today in the Minnesota Senate Jobs, Agriculture and Rural Development Committee when Senator Gary Dahms (R-Redwood Falls) moved to amend SF1459 so that existing language would be deleted from statute.
"This is loosely drawn language, it's very vague," Dahms said. "... This was passed in the House last year, and the concern I have is that we're going to start asking people when they apply for money through Legacy or LCCMR, we're going to insist they meet this and it's really going to be hard to do that because the terms and the facts just aren't there. . . " (We post the section of statute below).
But it's not just wildlife habitat will be affected. As a consequence of removing the language, greenhouses and garden stores could market bee-lethal, neonic-treated plants and seeds as "pollinator friendly" to the home gardener.
At
NH Labor, writes—
NH House GOP Jeopardize Voter Privacy And Force Towns To Pay For Equipment In Voter ID Mandate:
In a party line vote yesterday afternoon, Republicans on the House Finance Committee voted to pass a costly and unfunded mandate on to cities and towns to implement the camera provision of the voter ID law. Amendment 2015-1103h eliminates the requirement that the Secretary of State provide each city and town the photography and printing supplies to implement the voter ID law. Each municipality will now be responsible for purchasing a camera, color printer, photo paper, and any other supplies necessary to comply with the provision of the law set to go into effect in September 2015.
“The House Republicans are passing a costly and unfunded mandate on to local towns and cities to implement an unnecessary camera provision of an already unnecessary voter ID law,” said Zandra Rice Hawkins, executive director of Granite State Progress. “It is clear from the hasty introduction of this amendment that sponsor Rep. Dan McGuire and the other Republicans who voted for it did not even take the time to read the current statute. McGuire told the committee that the state does not need to provide the equipment because cameras and electronic communication are already so common, implying that election moderators should just take a photo with a smart phone and email it to the SOS. However, the voter ID law specifically says the photo must be printed out in color and then the electronic copy immediately deleted.”
“If House Republicans want to change the voter ID law to an electronic record-keeping version, this raises real concerns over privacy. Under that scenario, moderators could use private phones and email accounts to transfer or store images of the electorate with no data protections whatsoever,” Rice Hawkins said.
Granite State Progress and other election protection advocates are calling for the New Hampshire legislature to eliminate the costly camera provision of the voter ID law, saving taxpayer dollars and preventing long delays at the polls.