Citizens for a Better Arizona is sponsoring a Recall Pearce canvas operation in Mesa on Saturday, March 5. Tucson activists– including Tucson’s Chapter of Progressive Democrats of America– are organizing local activists to go to Mesa for this event.

Only 17,000 people in Pearce’s Mesa district voted for him, and now he’s the most powerful man in Arizona. It’s time for the other ~99% of Arizonans to say he does not represent us.

For more information, check out this facebook link.

PDA is organizing a van and carpooling for this event. Contact Salomon Baldenegro Jr. at sbaldenegro@gmail.com for further details and/or if you can offer a ride or would like a ride.

This 3-month-old baby and her six-year-old brother are among the 90,000 Arizona children on the Kids' Care waiting list. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Arizona Governor Hard-Hearted Hattie… oops… Jan Brewer gained national attention last fall when she dropped 97 people who had been eligible for transplants under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) off the list.

Arizona’s Death Panel quickly went viral– thanks to multiple news stories, including the front page of the New York Times, and open fund-raising for Arizona transplant patients on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. The decision also secured the Scrooge of the Year title for Brewer.

Now, fast forward to February 2011, at least two of the transplant patients have died, waiting and hoping that the Arizona Legislature would change its mind and vote to fund transplants again. Although the Arizona transplant patients have become a cause celebre, they are by far not the only victims of Arizona’s Teapulbican government.

Brewer and her Legislative cronies want to knock everyone– 250,000+ adults– off of the AHCCCS list. Last summer, they wanted to shutdown the voter-initiated Kids’ Care program, which provides health care and early childhood development programs for small, low-income children, and steal the Kids Care money, but the voters said “no way” in the November 2010 election. The Legislature did cap enrollment for Kids Care, which now has a 90,000 (and growing) waiting list of children who have been denied AHCCCS coverage but may be eligible for Kids Care.

Now, I may sound hard-hearted here, but why would the Arizona Legislature care about 95 transplant patients when they don’t care what happens to 90,000 babies or 250,000 adults? Yes, all 95 of those people will most likely die without a transplant, but without health insurance coverage, a percentage of the 90,000 babies and 250,000 adults will also die or go undiagnosed and untreated.

When you’re on a Death Panel, you have to make tough decisions– like giving corporate tax breaks.

I was discussing this situation with a friend yesterday. He said, “All hell will break loose when the babies die by legislative decision.”

Arizona Legislators Anna Tovar (a former transplant patient) and Kyrsten Sinema (who voted to dump 250,000 people off AHCCCS) will hold a press conference and rally at the state capitol today, February 28, 2011, to draw attention to the 95 remaining transplant patients. I want to know why they are focusing on a small group of transplant patients and not on the 90,000 babies and 250,000 adults who need help.

Union-busting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was caught in a telephone sting. A blogger from the BuffaloBeast posed as David Koch (notorious right-philanthropist, major donor to Walker’s campaign), and owner of 18 factories in Wisconsin and talked with Walker on the phone about his union-busting plans.

Above is part one; here is a link to part 2.

In part 2, Walker brags about “doing something big” as a new governor and brags about how popular his union-busting activities are with Wisconsinites and other governors, who are contacting him. He and the fake Koch also discuss placing thugs among the friendly protesters, and he agrees with the fake Koch when he disses the “liberal bastards” on MSNBC.

“This is our time to change the course of history,” Walker tells the fake Koch, as he compares his struggle with the unions to President Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall” challenge to the communists.

“It’s all about getting our freedom back,” Walker says. [Huh?] “… The bottom line is we’re going to get to the world movement here.”

Ed Schultz– one of those “liberal bastards” on MSNBC– is going to be covering this story on his show on Wednesday night on MSNBC.

Women wearing burkas. (Photo Credit: Second City Style.)

Even though federally-funded abortions have been illegal in the US for more than 30 years, conservative Republicans campaigned on this issue during 2010. (Of course, we all know Republicans don’t allow FACTS to get in the way of their sound bites.)

Now Republican members of the US House of Representatives have introduced multiple bills to make illegal something that is already illegal. So, what’s up with that?

The bottomline is that with newly introduced legislation Republicans have declared a war on family planning, a war Planned Parenthood, a war on women’s health services, and a war on women– particularly poor women. Planned Parenthood offers family planning and preventive health screening to 3 million people per year– mostly poor women who don’t have health insurance. Less than 10 percent of Planned Parenthoods’ services are related to legal, non-government-funded abortions, but that hasn’t stopped Republican ideologues from targeting them and their services for elimination.

The Republican bills introduced in the US House of Representatives:

• would severely limit access to all women’s health services, particularly birth control and family planning;
• would eliminate all funding for any organization that offers legal abortions (even though the government funding is not paying for those abortions);
• would penalize women who BUY THEIR OWN INSURANCE if that insurance plan includes abortion coverage;
• would redefine rape;
• and would eliminate federal subsidies to private insurance plans (purchased by individuals or employers under the Affordable Care Act) if those plans include any abortion coverage.

Essentially, Republicans are trying to eliminate a woman’s right to choose the course of her medical care.

Here is an excerpt from Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman interviewing Celie Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. You can listen to or read the full interview here. [Emphasis added.]

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at what’s being described as “the most dangerous legislative assault on women’s health” ever. Since taking power in January, the Republican-led House has introduced several major anti-choice bills that women’s rights activists say could place severe limitations on access to reproductive health services. This, despite a campaign pledge to focus on creating jobs. Republican House Speaker John Boehner hailed the proposed legislation.

HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land. The current law, particularly as enforced by this administration, does not reflect the will of the American people. Last year, we listened to the American people through America Speaking Out. They spoke on this issue loudly and clearly. So we have included it in our pledge, and today we’re making good on that commitment.

Congressman Chris Smith has introduced bipartisan legislation that codifies the Hyde Amendment and other similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions across all federal programs. This commonsense legislation reflects the will of the people and deserves the support of the House. It’s one of our highest legislative priorities, and as such, I’ve directed that it receive the designation of H.R. 3.

AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker John Boehner. As he noted, H.R. 3, called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would cut off public funds for abortions. A second bill, H.R. 358, called the “Protect Life Act,” would prohibit federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services under the Affordable Care Act. A third bill, H.R. 217, called the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” would deny federal family planning funds to any organizations that perform abortions, regardless of whether or not the organization uses that federal money for abortions.

To discuss the legislation, we’re joined now by Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. Through its affiliates, Planned Parenthood provides family planning, contraception and abortion services at more than 800 health clinics across the country, serving more than three million patients a year.

Cecile Richards, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about what’s happening in Washington, D.C., today, where you are lobbying Congress?

CECILE RICHARDS: Sure. Thanks, Amy. Thanks for having me. It’s great to be back.

The House leadership in Congress has basically just declared war on women, really from day one. And I know you had that clip there from Speaker Boehner, but it goes much further than that. They not only are now trying to—federal funding hasn’t been available for abortion for more than 30 years, but what they’re really doing is trying to overturn the legal right to abortion in any context. As well, though, it’s way beyond abortion. Now they’re basically trying to end family planning and access to birth control in America. The Republican budget that came out basically gets rid of the nation’s Family Planning Program. And as well, we expect in the next day or two, with the support of the Speaker, there will be an amendment to basically end all federal funds going to Planned Parenthood, including funds that are used for basic birth control, cancer screenings and preventive care for more than three million people every year.

AMY GOODMAN: In your 800 clinics of Planned Parenthood, how much of the work is around abortion? What is the array of services that you provide?

CECILE RICHARDS: Less than 10 percent of our services are related to abortion. In fact, 90 percent, more than 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s care is preventive care. We do—we provide birth control to about two-and-a-half million people every year. We do almost a million cancer screenings for breast exams, as well as cervical cancer screenings. We’re now one of the largest providers of STD testing and treatment in the country.

And for so many women who come to Planned Parenthood, like other family planning clinics, we are their only doctor. You know, the vast majority of women who come to Planned Parenthood, it will be the only doctor they see all year. And so, I think one of the most damaging things about what’s being proposed by the Republican leadership right now in Congress is it would basically take away healthcare for three million people who currently have it.

CECILE RICHARDS: No, and it hasn’t since—it hasn’t for more than 30 years. So, I mean, I was really struck by the clip that you played from Speaker Boehner talking about the will of the people. I actually thought the will of the people, based on this last election, was to get the American economy back going and get people back to work. So it’s quite stunning to me that instead of focusing on jobs and really getting the economy going, they are spending all of their time talking about issues that I think the American people are settled. And the fact that they would, after this healthcare—you know, working over the last two years to finally expand healthcare access to folks in America, their very proposals would take away healthcare for more than five million women who currently have access to it through the nation’s Family Planning Program or through Planned Parenthood.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go through these three major bills right now before Congress.

CECILE RICHARDS: OK.

AMY GOODMAN: First, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which critics call the “Stupak on Steroids” bill.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, the Smith—the Chris Smith bill that Speaker Boehner was referring to is the most far-reaching bill we have ever seen. And not only does it codify the Hyde Amendment, which of course we disagree with, but—that is currently the law that federal funds can’t be used for abortion—but it even says, if you use your own money, a woman uses her own money to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, she will have to pay higher taxes, because she can no longer get the tax benefits of having healthcare coverage that’s comprehensive. Same with small business owners. If you’re a business owner and you get a tax benefit from providing—from providing healthcare coverage, if that coverage also includes abortion coverage, you can no longer get that tax benefit. And it’s going to deny—essentially, the purpose of the Smith bill is to take away the right of women to have abortion coverage in insurance anywhere in America, even women with desperately needed terminations based on medical need.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the redefining of “rape” that’s included in H.R. 3, Cecile Richards.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, this is the most egregious thing and that absolutely has—I think defines the kind of attitude we’re seeing by the House leadership, which is it attempted to say there are only certain kinds of rape that now you would have the right to get an abortion, and that was forcible rape. They wanted to redefine what are good rapes and what are bad rapes. And it has created an enormous public outcry, and I think to the embarrassment of the leadership. But I think it’s just one indication of how far they are willing to go in taking away women’s access to healthcare in America.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, you have to explain that further. Good rapes and bad rapes?

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, yes, if it wasn’t considered forcible, if it was simply you were raped, if it was a date rape or other kind of rape that wasn’t considered forcible, where you could demonstrate—I guess it would be up to the rape victim to demonstrate that it was—how forcible it was, you could not have access to abortion coverage as a result of the rape.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting, because we just played in the headlines a group of women, and some men, who are suing around the issue of rape in Iraq, and a videotape—

CECILE RICHARDS: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN:—was made of one woman, and her commander saying, looking at the videotape that the men made who were raping her, he didn’t feel that she had fought back hard enough.

CECILE RICHARDS: Exactly. I just saw that, that you had played it. And I think it is incredible to me that at this time in the United States of America, we are talking about going so far back, basically repealing women’s rights in a way that is just unthinkable. And again, I think it’s—as you said earlier, it’s not simply about—it’s not simply about ending Roe v. Wade, which is really the purpose of Mr. Smith and Mr. Boehner, it’s literally taking away the access to birth control in America, which is unbelievable. How did we get here?

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go on to the federal legislation—yes, there are more bills that are being weighed now in Congress.

CECILE RICHARDS: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: The Congress is saying that they are focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs.

CECILE RICHARDS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then I want to talk about the state level and talk about states like, oh, South Dakota. Is it possible that the killing of abortion providers could be considered justifiable homicide? This is what we’re going to take on, as we continue after the break with Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Cecile Richards. She’s president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation’s leading provider of reproductive healthcare and sex education and the country’s largest advocacy organization for women’s health and rights. Let’s talk about H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. What would that do, Cecile Richards?

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I’m sorry, tell me—the number doesn’t—

AMY GOODMAN: H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions even when necessary to save a woman’s life.

CECILE RICHARDS: Right. I apologize, I didn’t remember the number. We have—as you know, there is a raft of bills that have now been introduced in Congress, really in the House. And the concern over this bill is what—is allowing hospitals to refuse treatment, even in the case of a woman’s life who needs an abortion. And, of course, this has been—there have been massive expansions of conscience clauses and legislation to allow hospitals and even, of course, pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. And this is a concern about this bill, that it would allow, if a woman—and as you know, in some communities, you don’t have a lot of hospitals to choose from. And this would—our concern about this bill is it would allow hospitals to refuse life-saving treatment, if a woman needed an abortion, based on conscience. And again, I think this is where the leadership of the House isn’t focusing on women’s health. They are focusing on an ideological agenda, and they don’t understand how this is going to affect real women’s lives. And that’s the story that we’re trying to tell to Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: H.R. 217, the measure which has 122 co-sponsors, called the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, that would ban federal funding for other services to organizations that perform abortions? How would that affect Planned Parenthood, and what does that mean?

CECILE RICHARDS: I know, there’s so many. So, essentially, the other—one of the big goals is to prevent healthcare providers who provide an array of healthcare services—if any of the services they provide include abortions or abortion referrals, they should not be—this bill says they should not be able to get any federal funds for family planning, which, on the face of it, is ridiculous. Right now, as an example, Planned Parenthood is the biggest reproductive healthcare provider in the country. We actually—under the Title X program, which is our nation’s Family Planning Program, we provide more than a third of the clients who come in through the Title X program, we provide them family planning. So this would essentially take Planned Parenthood completely out of that system, as well as any other family planning provider that provided abortion care.

And if I could—you know, to remember, abortion is legal in this country. This is basically taking something that everyone is—that family planning clinics are providing that is a legal service and saying, “If you provide this service, you can no longer provide family planning.” The most ridiculous part about it is that, for Congressman Pence and the others who are proposing these bills, Planned Parenthood does more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in America. So I don’t really know where they think the millions of women who come to us and other providers are going to go for family planning anymore and what the result will be.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the state level, Cecile, to what is happening in various states. With at least 29 anti-choice governors, the battleground has shifted to the state legislatures. First, talk about what’s happening right now in South Dakota.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, South Dakota is one example of a very egregious bill that speaks to the interference of anyone who was trying to terminate a pregnancy. And it’s a complicated bill, so I don’t want to get into all of the details, but it is a—what we’re seeing in South Dakota—I could list states across the country—are state legislatures who unfortunately are much in the mold now of the leadership of the House of Representatives, who, instead of focusing on the really hard and important issues of the day—about their budgets, their economy—they are using this as an opening, with the sort of the shift to the right in the leadership and in these legislatures to now try to repeal every single—every single right that women have to legal abortion. And they’re focusing, as well, on providers. And the goal is not only to make sure that women don’t have access, but to make sure that doctors are afraid to even provide legal abortions in this country. And that’s really what the South Dakota bill is about.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what is happening in Kansas, Cecile Richards.

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, there are so many things happening in Kansas, I don’t even know—I don’t even know where to begin. I mean, we have obviously—in the state of Kansas, we’ve been dealing with very bad legislation for years, for decades. So, I mean, we could talk about these specific states, but I think the important thing, just to sort of bring it back overall, is that what we are seeing—but it’s not just at the state level. I agree with you that there are a lot of problems at the state level, but we are literally seeing the federal government, the U.S. House of Representatives, trying to end birth control access in America. So, I agree that the states are where some of the most egregious state bills are, but it’s much bigger than that. And I think this is—what we are seeing around the country is this unbelievable overreach by the leadership that was elected in November, not focusing on what the people want, but in fact focusing on issues about abortion access, taking away birth control, allowing hospitals to refuse treatment, allowing pharmacists to refuse birth control. This is not what the American people voted for, and I think there’s going to be an enormous political backlash, which we’re already beginning to see at Planned Parenthood, folks coming into our clinics and saying, “I cannot believe I’ve just heard that the U.S. House of Representatives is trying to shut down Planned Parenthood.”

Ironically, the GOP– the party that will fight to the death for individual rights, gun rights, corporate personhood, and tax cuts for the rich– has jumped at the chance to squash women”s rights and harm families. What will be their next attack on American women– the country’s largest minority group? Are burkas in our future?

For a chilling list of Republican attacks nationwide on women’s health, check out this story: Five Ways That The GOP Is Trying To Eradicate A Woman’s Right To Choose. (Note the Arizona Legislature’s participation in this effort.)

For more of this interview, check out the Democracy Now website.

Wednesday evening, I posted a story about the proposed 300% tax on medical marijuana, which blew up in the Citizen comments section and on state representatives’ facebook pages over night.

The story in today’s Arizona Daily Star corroborated my story and offered more details.

Basically, Attorney General Tom Horne is using a loophole in Prop 203 (the medical marijuana law that voters passed in 2010) on which to base his sales tax ruling. The law says would-be medical marijuana patients can get a “doctors’ recommendation” for the drug– not a prescription. Prescriptions are not taxable; doctors’ recommendations are. (This is like saying your doctor recommended aspirin or multi-vitamins; when you go to buy the aspirin or multi-vitamins, they are subject to sales tax.)

Horne estimates that applying Arizona’s base sales tax + any applicable city sales taxes could bring in $40 million, a figure he extrapolates from sales in Colorado.

OK, fine, charge regular sales tax. My real issue is with Democratic State Representative Steve Farley’s proposal for a 300% sales tax on medical marijuana. Farley justifies this rate because it is the same rate as the state charges for cigarettes. There are several disconnects here.

• Tobacco is highly addictive and kills more people in the US than all other substances combined. Public health advocates have pushed for ever-high tobacco taxes to encourage people to quit; cost is a research-based strategy. Originally, in Arizona and elsewhere, these tobacco tax revenues were used to prevent teens from starting to smoke, to help people quit smoking, and to treat the indigent with tobacco-related diseases. Arizona and other states have just about wiped clean all those public health programs.
• Medical marijuana is a medicinal plant which provides palliative care to seriously ill patients, and its use by patients will be guided by a physician. It is not a life-threatening drug like tobacco. (Seriously, if the government took an honest look at the death and costs associated with tobacco-smoking, IT would be illegal.)
• Why would you apply a tax rate that is designed to discourage use of a dangerous product to a plant that helps cancer and AIDS patients with their treatment?

I agree with Andrew Myers, who managed the Prop 203 campaign, when he says the 300% tax would put medical marijuana pricing out of reach of most people– thus killing the goose that laid the multi-million-dollar golden egg– and when he disputes Farley’s $40/ounce base price for medical marijuana. Myers calls $40/ounce a “myth”; I’d call it 1975 pricing. My sources near the university say marijuana is sold for $40-60 for 1/8 ounce.  Let’s do the math for the low end price…

$40 (per 1/8 oz) x 8 = $320/oz x 2.5 oz (the amount people are allowed to buy every 2 weeks) = $800 x 300% sales tax = $2400 every 2 weeks.

This pricing would encourage the continuation of street sales. I think medical marijuana should be taxed the same as other herbal remedies (ie, ginkgo biloba, echenichia, St. John’s Wart, garlic, etc.)– 6.6% + applicable city taxes. (I can’t believe I just sided with Tom Horne.)

From the Star article…

“We’re not wild about the idea of increasing the cost of what essentially is medication for seriously ill people,” he said, but no challenge is planned.

But Myers said what Farley wants would be challenged as illegal.

He said it’s one thing to tax marijuana like other products. A special tax, Myers said, runs afoul of a constitutional provision barring lawmakers from altering voter-approved measures.

Farley, however, said the tax is justified. He said a 300 percent levy puts the tax on marijuana at the same general level as the tax on cigarettes, which are subject to a $2-per-pack levy.

“People use cigarettes as an over-the-counter medication for various types of things,” he said. He also doubts imposing the tax alters what voters approved.

Anyway, Farley said, those who really need the marijuana won’t mind paying the extra fee. He figures marijuana sells for $40 an ounce, meaning the sales price, tax and all, would be $160.

Myers said $40 marijuana is a “myth,” and the actual price at dispensaries will be 10 times that, putting medical marijuana out of reach of many in need, particularly since the drug is not covered by health insurance.

One dollar = One vote (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

One year ago today, the US Supreme Court blew the doors off campaign finance reform with their decision on the landmark Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting campaign contributions from corporations limits their freedom of speech. This decision is based upon the legal precedent of corporate personhood, which gives corporations the same rights as “natural persons” (AKA real people). This ruling permitted corporations and unions to directly fund campaign advertising, a practice that had been restricted; it also cleared the way for the creation of secret campaign financing groups, which poured billions into the 2010 midterm election.

The watchdog group Common Cause is now raising the question of conflict of interest in this case. Two of the court’s most conservative justices– Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who voted in favor of Citizens United– have been linked to Charles and David Koch, conservative billionaires who push right-wing causes with their contributions and benefited from the Citizens United ruling.

At issue is the justices attendance at soirees hosted by the Kochs. Common Cause has asked the Justice Department to investigate the connection and has asked for a re-trial if conflict of interest is found.

For more details, check out this story in the LA Times…
2 Supreme Court judges had conflict of interest in campaign finance case, group says

And this one in Blog for Arizona…
Common Cause requests a U.S. Justice Department investigation of Justices Scalia and Thomas for a conflict of interest in Citizens United v. FEC

Poster from Martin Luther King Jr. march. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

With the remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy and the passing of Sargent Shriver, a foot soldier in the War on Poverty, this week, I have been read about the early 1960s and listening to speeches by King and President Lyndon B. Johnson.

A recurring theme in these speeches is the struggle to raise Americans out of poverty. In the early 1960s, 20% of Americans lived in poverty, according to National Public Radio (NPR). In his first State of the Union address–  47 years ago this month– Johnson declared the War on Poverty– just weeks after taking office following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

This administration today, here and now, declares an unconditional War on Poverty in America. It will not be a short or easy struggle. No single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won.

With this declaration, Johnson was continuing Kennedy’s legacy. The War on Poverty led to the creation of Johnson’s Great Society and the largest group of progressive social programs since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. Many important Great Society programs– aimed at improving labor, healthcare, and education for poor and working class Americans– are still in existence: Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, student loans for college, work study, and Head Start.

The result was the poverty rate in the US declined from 20% to 11% by 1973– where it stayed for decades.

Under President Ronald Reagan, a revisionist view of economics became fashionable and the War on Poverty dropped off the national agenda. In its place, scapegoating of the poor became popular. There were rallying cries for small government and welfare reform to root out “welfare cheats.” Rather than educating the poor and helping them into the job market, trickle-down economics preached that giving tax cuts for the rich would allow for investment and the wealth would trickle-down to the masses.

The result of 30 years of trickle-down economics? The rich got richer; 80% of the total increase in income went to the richest 1%. The poor got poorer;  the number of Americans living below the poverty line rose from 1.7 million in 2008 to 47 million in 2011– 15.7% of the population. And the middle class is rapidly disappearing.

From NPR…

“When you have 1 in 7 Americans living in poverty. 1 in 5 children living in poverty — including 1 in 3 African-American children and Latino children — and it’s not on America’s radar, something’s very wrong.”

Indeed it is the shame of our nation that a record 47 million people now live below the poverty line — $22,400 for a family of four — and a stunning 1 in 3 Americans are living at less than twice that threshold. And yet we hear so little about this crisis in the mainstream media and Congress, where it seems off the radar not only for the GOP, but even for some of our progressive allies.

But the grim truth is that many of the same structural problems that are making life a struggle for the middle-class — and resulted in the first “economic recovery” in 2003-2007 where productivity rose, but median income declined and poverty worsened — are also leading to record numbers of poor people. From 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent. Our economy is super-sizing the wealthy, while producing large quantities of low-wage jobs, unemployment and underemployment, and services are eroding.

From the Huffington Post…

The latest hunger report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows hunger remains at its highest levels in 15 years with 17.4 million households reporting having difficulty feeding their family due to lack of resources

From the New York Times…

Federal aid is being scaled back, even though growth is not yet robust enough to make a sizable dent in unemployment. Late last year, Republicans blocked the extension of a successful stimulus program that had created 250,000 subsidized jobs for young people and low-income parents. They claimed the stimulus was an expensive failure, even as they pressed to renew the high-end Bush tax cuts. As part of the tax-cut deal, President Obama and Congress agreed to extend federal jobless benefits in 2011, but the checks will be $25 less a week than under the stimulus. That reduction could push an estimated 175,000 more people into poverty in 2011. The deal also included a one-year payroll tax cut that will benefit most workers, but it is less helpful to the lowest-income workers than a now-expired tax break in the stimulus.

With 14.5 million people still out of work, and more than 6 million of them jobless for more than six months, reducing federal help now will almost ensure more poverty later. That would impose an even higher cost on the economy and budget because ever poorer households cannot spend and consume.

This is shameful: Poverty, hunger, joblessness, and home foreclosures are all running rampant in the US, and what is the government doing about it? Nothing. In fact, Republicans and Tea Partiers– now in control of the House of Representatives and many state legislature– want to lead America backward.

This week Republican and Tea Partiers in the US House of Representatives are wasting two days grandstanding about repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act– which has already helped millions of Americans secure healthcare insurance.

On the state level, trickle-down economics is still king. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature want to knock 280,000 Arizonans off of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) or eliminate AHCCCS (the state’s Medicaid system) altogether. What happens to these poor people when they lose their health insurance coverage? They’re not going to magically disappear. They will delay treatment and either die on the street or go to emergency rooms– thus increasing the cost of treatment, not to mention increasing suffering. Brewer also proposes slashing university and community college budgets, which will most likely raise tuitions– again– and put a college education further from reach for low- and middle-income residents.

Arizona and other states also are attacking the unions. As a right to work state, union membership in Arizona is already very low. Without the power of organized labor to negotiate wages and benefits, multinational corporations will push wages to historic lows.

The altruistic War on Poverty announced in 1964 seems like a wistful dream now. Today, in its place, conservative politicians are waging a War on the Workers and the Poor.

What happened to the War on Poverty? It was no match for trickle-down economics.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords surrounded by supporters on primary election night 2010. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

News of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting rocked the Pima County Democratic Party’s reorganization meeting today in Tucson. A Facebook post from the Three Sonorans sent shockwaves through the Democrats’ media brainstorming session as smart phones lit up around the event.

Tears and disbelief spread amongst the precinct committee members and party officials who had gathered to elect new party officers and begin to develop strategies for the future. Many in attendance had worked tirelessly on multiple Giffords’ campaigns.

The meeting suspended temporarily as delegates made phone calls, tuned in radios, and watched the TV news which were conflicting early on. At one point, NPR, CNN and local TV affiliate KOLD all reported– prematurely– that Giffords had died. At the time of this writing, Giffords is recovering from surgery at University Medical Center (UMC) after a bullet that went through her brain. According to a press conference at UMC, 10 shooting victims had been taken there, and one– a child– had died as of 3 p.m. today. National Public Radio reported 18 shooting victims, including 6 dead.

After the meeting resumed, Democrats unanimously elected a slate of new officers for 2011-2012 and unanimously passed a resolution condemning HB2281– the Arizona law banning ethnic studies at Tucson High School.

The new officers are:
Jeff Rogers, returning for another term as chair of the Pima Dems
Deya Nevarez, 1st vice chair
Paul Eckerstrom, 2nd vice chair
Paul Durham, treasurer
Elaine Lim, recording secretary
Martin Bacall, corresponding secretary

After the quickest election in the history of the Pima Dems, more than of the 100 party faithful adjourned to the party headquarters for a vigil for Giffords. Multiple Tucson Police Department squad cars were dispatched to the Democratic Party meeting at Rincon High School and to the subsequent vigil; Giffords had been scheduled to speak at the meeting today.

Republicans who rode the Tea Party’s coat tails into office in 2010 are vowing to cut $100 billion from domestic spending, but can they really do it?

According to the New York Times, the only parts of the budget that would be exempt from a potential 20 percent across-the-board would be the military, domestic security, and veterans.

What would this mean for us? Cuts in Medicare and Social Security, reduced revenue-sharing with the states, more lay-offs, fewer teachers, less healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, etc. How can anyone believe that this is a good idea? (And, don’t forget, the returning Republicans– like House-Speaker-elect John Boehner– were the ones lobbying hard for continued tax cuts for the rich just a few weeks ago.) From the Times…

The budget-cutting exercise is perhaps the biggest test facing the House Republicans as they seek to remain united and to keep faith with Tea Partymembers, many of whom remain suspicious of the party’s willingness to vote for deep spending cuts.

But if Republicans vote for the size and range of required cuts in education, law enforcement, medical and scientific research, transportation and much more, it would give Democrats political ammunition to use against them in swing districts.

Such reductions are sure to draw protests from governors and local officials, including Republicans, who are counting on federal money to help balance their budgets. Many business and farm groups likewise would oppose cuts in their subsidies. And many economists would argue that immediate federal spending cuts of this size, especially on top of cuts and layoffs in the cities and states, would threaten the economy’s recovery and offset any stimulus from the tax cut deal Republicans and Mr. Obama reached just weeks ago.

Yet conservative analysts say even more spending cuts are desirable. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, has outlined a plan for $343 billion in reductions, including cuts from corporate tax breaks and entitlement programs that are not in the portion of the federal budget that House Republicans are focusing on, the so-called nonsecurity discretionary spending.

“The difficulty for Republicans is that they’re concentrating their cuts in a small sliver of the budget,” Mr. Riedl said. “They should also be addressing large entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, which are the main source of our budget problems. Cutting $100 billion from these other programs isn’t just a matter of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. It will involve real cuts in real programs.”…

The promise to cut $100 billion this fiscal year — in effect, taking government operations to 2008 levels — would mean cuts of more than 20 percent across the board from the $477 billion that Congress allocated for such programs in the 2010 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30.

Such across-the-board cuts “would have very damaging implications for the long-term growth of the economy and the long-term future of our work force,” said Jacob J. Lew, Mr. Obama’s budget director. He is preparing the administration’s budget for the 2012 fiscal year, which would continue a three-year freeze of the same domestic spending at 2010 levels.

“If you look in areas like education, if it was applied across the board it would mean eight million students would have their Pell grants reduced by an average of $700,” Mr. Lew said. “You obviously could make policy not to do that, but then you’d have to save a lot of money somewhere else.”

A 20-percent cut also would mean 40,000 fewer teachers and school aides, he said, and big reductions in basic research, law enforcement and small business programs, among many others.

If the Republicans apply their promise literally, some programs would have to be scaled back even more because the government is already well into its fiscal year, so the cuts would have to be concentrated in a shorter period. The reductions would be about 30.6 percent, said James R. Horney, a former Congressional budget analyst who is now at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“That would require very large layoffs or furloughs of federal employees,” Mr. Horney said, “as well as big reductions in grants to state and local governments and government purchases of goods and services — all of which would offset a good portion of the stimulus achieved in the tax compromise and threaten the recovery.”

In new rules that the House is expected to adopt when it convenes on Wednesday, Republicans will empower the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, to set limits for the various categories of domestic spending that are decided in the Appropriations Committee. That is more power than ever invested in a Budget Committee chief and a significant diminution in the appropriation panel’s traditional sway.

Initially, that would allow House Republicans to suggest what general areas the $100 billion would come from without identifying specific cuts.

“The reality of governing is different than the reality of campaigning, and it’s easier to throw out a number than it is to support it,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior strategist.

Maybe the impending budget battles will open the eyes of complacent Americans.

Back in the early 1980s, I interviewed an old rancher who lived in Dragoon, Arizona for a feature story about rural Cochise County.

His 1800s stone ranch house was decorated with rustic furniture, a smattering of family heirlooms, and a large collection of old glass bottles. Being somewhat of an antique buff myself, I remarked at the variety of old bottles he had collected. As I photographed him, his house, and the bottle collection, I asked where he had gotten them all.

“This house is on the Mormon Trail,” he explained. “I found them all on my property.”

“The Mormon Trail?” I inquired– thinking it was a migration route like the Oregon Trail or Cornado’s Trail.

The grizzled old rancher chuckled, “The Mormon Trail is the route the Mormons took from St. David to the bars in Willcox. They didn’t want their family members or church elders in St. David to know they had been drinking in Willcox, so they dropped the evidence– the alcohol bottles– along the Mormon Trail as they rode their horses back home.”

I was reminded of the old rancher’s story this morning when I read Mesa seeks to seclude shops selling medical pot in today’s Arizona Daily Star.

In an attempt to legislate morality and control the temptation of the evil weed– even though it has been approved only for medical purposes– Mesa’s city council is considering highly restrictive zoning laws. Here is an excerpt from the Star (with emphasis added).

Mesa won’t let medical-marijuana shops open in most of its commercial districts, with city leaders saying they don’t want the substance sold near neighborhoods or in prominent locations.

Instead, the shops will be forced to industrial areas and just one kind of commercial use.
The city is taking a different approach from most other Arizona cities, which so far have been restricting the shops to commercial zones. The city staff had proposed that kind of regulation, but members of the City Council feared that would put the stores at the corner of major intersections.

The stores will be restricted from most areas in the city, as they must be at least a mile from each other, 2,400 feet from rehab facilities, 1,200 feet from churches and schools, and 500 feet from day-care facilities or preschools.

A map prepared by the city shows only slivers of land where the shops could open.

This is folly, and obviously another example of Arizona’s nanny state leanings. Once the Arizona Department of Health Services sets up the system for licensing dispensaries, caregivers, and medical providers, medical marijuana sales will begin in Arizona. It will be legal– even for Mesans– to purchase medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.

The Mesa city fathers should learn a lesson from the Mormon Trail story. If people want or need drugs– legal or otherwise– they will find a way to obtain then, even if it means driving to an industrial district of their lily-white city or (heaven forbid) driving into Phoenix.