azpaull's Blog

Shouldn't All Republicans Be OUTRAGED That A Prominent GOP'er Is Shielding His Illegal Immigrant Partner?

2010-09-15T18:46:18Z

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE? that popular mantra (just Google it) certainly seems to fit in this case. I just received a Tweet that led to an article in Monday's Washington Post about the possible effects an immigration overhaul (is one suddenly in the works?) would have on the estimated 24,000 gay and lesbian couples which include at least one foreign partner.

One of the couples interviewed for the article is an eye-opener:

Another Washington gay couple, who requested that their names not be published because the foreign partner is a Latino man currently living in the country under false pretenses and the American partner is a prominent Republican whose identity could easily lead authorities to the other man, said gays and lesbians fall in love in the same unpredictable way as straight people. Sometimes, the object of that love happens to be a foreigner.

"When you love someone, it feels the same," said the Latino man, who is in the country on a tourist visa and has been working in violation of it. He is afraid that his immigration status could be exposed at any time, and he could be forced to leave. He travels outside the country periodically to keep his tourist visa valid, always making sure when he presents his visa at the border that he has an air ticket showing when he plans to leave the United States.

"I am insecure because I am worried," he said. "If I have trouble with the police, they will send me back to my country. I have a partner. All my life is here. My family lives in Mexico City, but I feel comfortable here. I drive everyday - if I have an accident or the police stops me and ask me for my papers, I am afraid."

Soooooo, a prominent Republican man in D.C. requested anonymity because immigration authorities could deport the partner. He KNOWS that he is aiding and abetting someone here illegally.

Forgetting for a moment all of the other issues this raises, how can the Republican party - and all of the anti-illegal mmigration members of the party - tolerate this? According to them, this prominent Republican is committing a crime each and every day that his partner remains here. And, darn it, this IS a nation of laws and the federal government has been ignoring this way too long. And, so on.

I do not particularly want this Republican outed - either as a gay man or an adulterer or a criminal conspiracist. I do not particularly want the Latino partner outed or deported. But, I DO want hypocrisy exposed. And, this story screams "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy by Republican leaders, hypocrisy by rank-and-file Republicans, and hypocrisy by those fanning the flames of intolerance (of homosexuals, of Latinos, etc.)

Where's the outrage?

The Fox News/Republican Connection Raises Even More Questions - Are ALL Of Their "Interviews" Of Republicans (w/o equal time) In-Kind Contributions

2010-09-02T20:40:01Z

Thanks for the coverage of the complaint by the DGA against Fox News. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/democrats_accuse_fox_news_of_illegal_contribution.php

Ever since the $1,000,000 corporate contribution from News Corp. to the Republican Governors Association became public, I have been pondering the effects of that type of corporate/political party connection on financial disclosure rules, journalistic ethics, and other legal ramifications. Especially as I have watched the parade of Republican candidates and officeholders from Arizona before the Fox hosts.

I am confident that a strong argument can be made that News Corp. is providing an (unreported) in-kind contribution EVERY TIME Fox News (or the WSJ, etc.) provides a one-sided forum to state and federal candidates.

The nexus between Fox News and Republicans is now so strong that Fox has lost the ability to legitimately claim that their one-sided political interviews (and now, apparently, infomercials) are beyond the reach of the campaign-related laws simply because of the constitutional freedom of the press.

Campaign finance and disclosure laws/rules have to bear a very heavy burden if they are to get anywhere close to the freedoms of speech or the press. However, this new, stronger-than-before connection between Fox and the GOP fairly screams for justifiably requiring on-air, real-time disclosure of the contributions, and treating the air time as in-kind contributions.

Disclosure - in a size equal to candidate's website addresses or other information - has been upheld as not violating constitutional protections. Requiring disclosure and accounting for in-kind contributions are established as not violating constitutional protections.

Requiring "equal time" on any media outlet has not been so established (and should not be), but that is not what is at issue here. What IS at issue is that Fox News/News Corp. has now thumbed its nose at the electoral system by saying we can donate, we can provide massive amounts of valuable airtime to our favored candidates, and we can do this without subjecting any of our multi-pronged efforts to your state and federal election laws/rules.

Existing laws or rules - either at the federal level and/or the state level - should be enforced and/or new laws or rules should be put into place to rein in this new corporate/party behemoth. The current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court makes it unlikely that it would ultimately rule in favor of any party seeking to subject News Corp. to U.S., but I believe that lower courts (state, fed) could see the issue differently.

It certainly seems like a debate worth having, and having SOON.

Fmr-Rep. Jim Kolbe (Republican-AZ) Resurfaces, Chairs Democrat's Campaign For State Treasurer

2010-08-30T21:21:07Z

Without knowing about the Friday announcement, one of my kids and I were talking about former Congressman Jim Kolbe. How he epitomized the well-intentioned, good people that ARE actually involved in high-level politics. How he was one of the Republicans that Democrats could mark a ballot for.

Then, what do I learn today? That Kolbe is - for the first time on a statewide or federal level - endorsing a Democrat and is chairing his campaign. (A check of Andrei Cherny's website confirmed this.)

Good for Kolbe. And, good for us when politicians can buck their parties and support someone that they think is the best person for the job. Regardless of party label.

Arizona Governor Claims U.S. Report On Human Rights Is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"; Attempting To Mount A Mole Hill

2010-08-30T17:58:56Z

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is enjoying the national attention - and the boost in her electoral chances - she has received since signing controversial anti-immigration measure S.B. 1070 into law. On Friday, she took another step down that (far) right path, sending a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accusing her of "internationalism run amok" and "unconstitutional(ly)" filing an "international human rights case" against Arizona's (mostly-enjoined) law.

The State Department submitted a 29-page overview of human rights in the U.S., as part of a "review" process of every nation, being conducted by the U.N. Human Rights Commission. (report here) Near the bottom - sandwiched between a thumbnail of the 287(g) program and a promise to work on immigration reform - is this mild acknowledgment of the Arizona controversy:

"95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

This seemingly-innocuous inclusion prompted a Brewer-to-Clinton letter to express her "concern and indignation", to call the paragraph "downright offensive", and to warn her that "the State of Arizona will fight any attempt by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with the duly enacted laws of the State of Arizona in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

Her claim that the mention of the Arizona law is "internationalism run amok and unconstitutional" is based upon the fanciful premise that the federal government is submitting Arizona's law for "'review' by the United Nations".

Of course, Gov. Brewer's record and statements prior to her ascent to stardom in the illegal immigration debate includes no such railings against the UN and U.S. participation in it. This appears to be election pandering in its purest form.

Here's a fact check analysis of her statments, which concludes that they are "completely misleading".

Steele Reflects The Current Republican Party PERFECTLY!!!

2010-07-02T17:12:29Z

I applaud GOP Chair Michael Steele's self-contradictory comments about Afghanistan; he is the perfect example of the current-day Republican Party and should remain as an out(in right field)spoken leader of an out(in right field foul territory)spoken party.

I think the point for all reasonable people (Dems, Indies, reasonable Republicans) to recognize and emphasize is that this KIND of BS-Oppose-Anything-That-Obama-Says-At-Any-Cost is EXACTLY what (almost) ALL Republicans are doing. And, doing to some success, it appears (at the moment). Each of them keeps pushing each other to come up with just a little bit more extreme Obama criticism.

It is outrageous, and it is time for Americans to go on a major land offensive against this type of hyper-partisan-fact-challenged-self-contradictory-verging-on-the-kind-of-anti-patriotic-crap-that-Republicans-gleefully-accuse-Democrats-of-spew!

At the risk of repeating myself, my take is that Steele is just playing the same game that most Republicans are playing in opposing everything this President says or does simply to try to bring him down.

Let's See Your Amended Financial Disclosure Statement, Rep. Sessions!

2010-02-04T17:06:27Z

I just witnessed a disgusting display on C-Span. Republican Rep. Pete Sessions sarcastically blasted how Pres. Obama and the Democrats are leading our nation to its doom. He said it is so dire that he has gotten himself out of the stock market.

I breathlessly waited to see if he would tell us where he has parked all that money - treasuries, foreign stocks, gold, a jar buried in his backyard. No luck. Before I could bring up OpenSecrets.org on my browser, he had yielded back.

The latest personal financial disclosure report on file is for the calendar year 2008 - his stocks are valued at the end of that calendar year, when the stock market was just about at its lowest. At that low point, the Sessions family reported assets valued at between $1.4 and $3.4 Million. Looking at the actual report, almost all of that is in stocks, U.S. Treasuries, FNMA bonds.

Rep. Sessions' 2009 report is not due until May 15, but that will only show his assets as of 12/31/09. If Rep. Sessions actually divested himself of millions of dollars of stock within the first 5 weeks of 2010, he can file an amendment to his report (or, an early 2010 disclosure).

I'm not saying that Rep. Sessions was being untruthful when he said that he was so fearful of our country's economic survival that he bailed on our country. But, I challenge him to file the disclosure statement that proves it.

UPDATE: Dancing With The Senators: Sen. McCain Sidesteps Re: Reid, Plays Us For Dips

2010-01-12T19:14:30Z

Sen. McCain didn't want to look back at his VP choice - and got pretty snippy with Matt Lauer while apparently saying he didn't know what vetting process was conducted - but he had no problem looking back to Trent Lott and to bemoan the double standard with Harry Reid. At the end, Lauer pleaded for - and got - understanding for having to ask the questions.

Like his fellow AZ Senator (Jon Kyl) yesterday, McCain refused to take a stand one way or the other, while playing to his (would-be) supporters on the right by invoking the double standard line.

When reporters/interviewers question these guys - especially on a sideshow issue like this - they really need to pursue them: (a) make them specifically answer the question instead of dancing around; and (b) make it clear whether they are talking about resigning the Majority Leader post or the Senate seat itself.

Steele and Kyl were asked about the leadership post, which is what Lott was FORCED TO GIVE UP BY HIS REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. Which brings us to (c): Did YOU (Mr. Republican Senator) help convince Lott to step aside?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/z/azpaull/2010/01/dear-sen-kyl-are-you-a-clever.php

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34820034#34820034

Dear Sen. Kyl, Are You A Clever Guy Or A Hypocrite? Did YOU Help Convince Sen. Lott To Step Aside? The Differences That Seven Years and Party Labels Make

2010-01-11T19:15:47Z

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) seven years ago, when a Republican Senate Majority Leader was on the hot seat for his comments about Strom Thurmond and his subsequent explanations:

''I understand a lot of Democrats and liberals generally have had a hard time recently in trying to come up with an issue.... What is disappointing to me is that they are willing to pick something to try to smear somebody rather than engage in some legitimate debate about the economy or national security.'' --NYT, 12/11/02

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) yesterday, when a Democratic Senate Majority Leader was on the hot seat for his comments about Barack Obama's election:

"Whether Trent Lott should have resigned -- I think is... we should be reflecting on that now. If he should resign, then Harry Reid should. My tendency is that when these people apologize, and you know what's in their heart, they shouldn't. But I'd like to see the same standard applied to both." --Fox News Sunday, 1/10/10

***

Now, Sen. Kyl, when you side-stepped explicitly calling for Reid to step down as leader - while implying that Lott resigned his Senate seat (and not just the leadership post) - were you just being clever? How come you did not clarify what "resign" meant?

But, more importantly and setting aside whether you really see no difference between Lott's and Reid's remarks, how can you justify a let's-discuss-real-issues statement in 2002 and NOT make the same comment yesterday when you had a clear opportunity to help put it in perspective? Your comment seven years ago was reactive and after the story had started galloping down the lane, but yesterday you could have kept the horse in the barn. How was that not completely hypocritical?

And, while we are trying to figure out the relationship between the Lott situation and the Reid incident, can you PLEASE tell us whether you were one of the Republican senators who gathered behin Bill Frist and forced Trent Lott to relinquish the Majority Leader post? (Of course, that would have been after you had pooh-poohed the controversy over Lott's remarks.)

Actually, when it comes right down to it, all you REALLY have to do is tell us whether you thought Lott should step aside (at the time) and whether you think that Reid should step aside. Please don't side-step.

Sincerely,

Paul (a constituent of yours)

LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUMBLEEEEEE! McCain Is Ready To "Knock Some Sense Into Heads", Says Obama Is "LEADING AN EXTREME, LEFT WING CRUSADE TO BANKRUPT AMERICA"

2010-01-07T19:49:44Z

Arizona's Senior Senator has two in-your-face radio ads ready to run for his 2010 re-election campaign. I'll bet he's already bought the airtime on the conservative talker where potential primary (or Tea Party) rival and fmr Rep. J.D. Hayworth holds down the afternoon drive.

In the ads, he says he's ready to get bruises while he is "knocking some sense into heads in Washington". He claims he is "Arizona's last line of defense" against "President Obama, who "is leading an extreme, left wing crusade to bankrupt America." And, of course, the voice-over leads off both ads referencing McCain's heroism in Vietnam. Oh, by the way, please donate.

We all see so many political e-mails and ads that we kind of become numb to the hyperbole designed to motivate-to-donate. And, McCain has often shown his nasty side. But, I must say that this message surprised me - especially when he bolded the line accusing Obama of an extreme crusade to bankrupt America. Isn't that something only a Muslim-Christian-foreign born-Communist-Fascist-Nazi-Witch Doctor would do? In light of our discussion earlier this week about the possible McCain-Hayworth primary battle, I guess it shouldn't. Your reactions?

The text of the e-mail follows, and here is the link to listen to the radio ads. (I'll try to transcribe them later and add that as a comment.)

E-mail:

My Friend,

I have seen my fair share of battles throughout my years of service to our country. In the Senate, I have waged war against wrong, whether it is today's massive federal spending, government-run health care or violent extremism that threatens our great nation.

President Obama is leading an extreme, left wing crusade to bankrupt America -- leaving the bill with our children and grandchildren. I stand in his way every day in an effort to serve as a voice for the millions of Americans who disagree with the direction he is taking our country. If I get a bruise or two knocking some sense into heads in Washington, so be it. I'll keep fighting for jobs, economic growth and reduced spending as long as I'm in serving in the U.S. Senate.

We're anticipating a competitive reelection race and have launched our first radio ads in Arizona highlighting my efforts to represent our shared values. You can preview the two ads by following this link.

After listening to the ads, I ask that you consider making a generous contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to help our campaign expand our ad buy. We want all Arizonans to hear these messages and every dollar you generously give today will enable our campaign to continue playing these ads and others like them.

Today, we are engaged in a battle to save jobs, secure our nation's borders and cut the Democrats' out of control spending. The polls show we are in a strong position to win, but in my life I have taken nothing for granted, and that's why we are running an aggressive reelection campaign. I remain committed to winning this campaign, but my greatest strength is my base of supporters and I will only succeed if I have you on board.

Please follow this link to make your immediate donation of any amount up to the $4800 legal limit to my reelection campaign. Your support is a tremendous boost to my ability to continue serving as a voice of reason in Washington. I pledge that I will continue fighting each day to bring economic growth, fiscal sanity and a strong defense to our nation.

My sincere thanks,

John McCain

P.S. Our campaign has just released our first radio ads of my reelection campaign and I want you to be among the first to hear them. Please follow this link to listen to the ads and make a generous contribution of any amount to enable our campaign to expand our ad buy. We want as many people as possible to hear this important message. Thank you.

Remaining Roguish: Sheriff Arpaio Disclaims Illegal Immigration Positions IN HIS BOOK!

2010-01-04T17:39:37Z

Even ones about his own parents' emigration to the U.S. (from Italy). Not only that, but he has not totally read the book. (He "may have" read the parts relating to illegal immigration.)

Sometimes, it takes being under oath to take the tough-guy, in-your-face attitude out of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (and others like him). And, when you get well-known 1st Amendment attorney David Bodney taking a 7-hour deposition from Arpaio, a lot of the bluster loses its luster.

Although listed as the key author and there being video of Arpaio telling someone at a book-signing that everything they need to know about the topic of "illegal immigration" is in his book, Arpaio quickly backed off from the contents of the book.

The answer to that last question was "yes", though he replies "Yeah, I may have", when asked whether he read the parts relating to the illegal immigration problem. (The book is titled/subtitled: Joe's Law: America's Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs and Everything Else That Threatens America.)

He disclaims that he believes that "Illegal immigration" is one of the things that "Threatens America." (the sub-title) He disclaims that he knows anything about the text in the book that speaks of Mexicans' attempts to emigrate to the U.S. in order to speed a "reconquista" - or, getting the U.S. to return lands to Mexico.

Arpaio went so far as to say that the paragraphs that talk about his parents' own emigration from Italy to the U.S. were not written by him, that he did not review the claims word-for-word and that he does not agree with the statements about Mexicans being the only immigrants who do not hold "to certain hopes and truths."

Of course, there is a lot more to the deposition, including walking through many of the statements Arpaio made on Fox News, CNN, etc. The full transcript can be found here.

Some of the video of the deposition has been made available on Channel 12's website (in a reporter's package) and on the Phoenix New Times' website (video package put together by an activist interspersed with a couple of snippets of previous bluster by Arpaio).

The federal civil rights suit will continue, and there will likely be further depositions of other key members of the MCSO.

Linda Ronstadt Reads TPM and Eric Ward; Joins In Natl Day of Action Against Arizona's Arpaio; TPM Meetup?

2009-12-30T19:19:22Z

(Disclaimers: (1) I don't know if she of the beautiful voice actually reads TPM and/or the Cafe's Eric Ward; (2) Ronstadt did not organize the upcoming day of action, just joined up with it; (3) I was not attempting to extend responsibility for Arpaio to the entire state of Arizona, as it is only Maricopa County that has re-elected him three times; (4) headline-writing is not easy.)

It was about one week ago that Eric Ward posted (in the Cafe) that "Arizona's Crisis Needs a Nation To Respond" . It generated much support (and some opposition) to efforts to change the way things have developed here in the Phoenix-area with regard to Sheriff Joe Arpaio/Cty Atty Andy Thomas, and their admittedly-anti-illegal-immigrant-racial-profiling sweeps/publicity stunts.

I did not know it at the time, but apparently plans were already underway by groups led by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (and others) to have a "National Day of Action" in Phoenix, on January 16th.

Now, beautiful songstress Linda Ronstadt is speaking out against Arpaio and committing to be here on the 16th. In addition, Rage Against the Machine's Zach de la Rocha is again in the lead, and Little Joe y La Familia will be performing.

Lest you think that Ms. Ronstadt is an out-of-touch ex-celebrity who is just getting involved because it is the thing to do, she reminds us of her family's Arizona law enforcement background and speaks intelligently about the situation in an interview with the Phoenix New Times: "Any of us could be snatched off the street without a warrant because of the way Arpaio is applying the law," noted Ronstadt. "He's had people go and arrest Republicans that have opposed him...They have these trumped up charges, and then later on they go, `Oh well, I guess we weren't right about these charges.' By then the damage is done and people are terrified of him. That's what happens in places...where they have dictators."

She also spoke more broadly of immigration policies and her previous work along the border. I highly recommend the rest of the article, too.

I noted that there was talk of some TPM'ers meeting up in Phoenix to discuss issues face-to-face. This rally (which is sure to bring out pro-Arpaio-niks, too) may be the place. (Unfortunately, I may or may not be able to participate due to unbreakable family commitments.)

In case of thread deletion...

2009-12-28T16:09:10Z

... here is the comment I posted on Resistance's "I, RESISTANCE, APOLOGIZE..." thread.

Resistance, as one who has debated/discussed - or, tried to - with you on a number of occasions, and who was just (over on my most-recent post) challenging some of your cites and (il)logic, I welcome your resolution to improve yourself. I am always trying - and sometimes failing - to do likewise.

However, based upon what I have seen of your postings, I am not ready to take this neo-mea culpa at face value. The issues I have with your posts are not your incivility. They are not your scriptural quotations. They are not even your sometimes-difficult-on-the-brain grammar.

The issues that I have with you are - as OGD pointed out above - your seemingly-intentional ability to authoritatively mislead readers. (Most recent example: on my most recent post, you claimed that the attacks on Arpaio began when he took on Catholic Bishop O'Brien and the Diocese. You attached a non-authoritative cite that did not back up your point, and the facts are that Arpaio did not investigate O'Brien and did not take on the Diocese.)

The issues that I have with you are that you are utterly incapable of trying to look at issues with any degree of objectivity and that you try to twist others' words into pretzels simply to make one of your very-limited stable of points. (One example: I specifically stated that neither side in the Arpaio/Thomas vs. Stapley/Wilcox bs is blameless and you refused to acknowledge that Arpaio has any role in the escalating mudfight.)

The issues that I have with you have to do with your incomprehensible leaps of logic that rarely make for the kind of debate/discussion that you profess to yearn for. (Very recent example: Because McGregor ruled against some Democrats in re-districting battles, she is part of overarching Republican conspiracy to control state - except for Arpaio/Thomas, apparently.)

Heck, be uncivil occasionally, if the debate calls for it. I would gladly welcome that, if you could only strive for progress on these other issues. Needless to say (repeat), I am not perfect on all of these fronts, either; I will (continue to) strive for progress. Hopefully, we can all do that together.

Posted by azpaull
December 28, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink

Arizona Supreme Court Decides To Referee the Maricopa County Mud Fight

2009-12-23T21:45:34Z

WHAT A MESS! A quick recap: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney have been investigating, indicting, interrogating and intimidating just about anyone they can. Using the nation's 5th-largest court system for most of their actions, they have indicted and charged County Supervisors on situations that have been slammed by another county attorney and by a judge. They have gone after a Superior Court judge with bribery charges, they have filed a federal suit against the whole bunch of them accusing the supervisors, judges, county managers, private attorneys on RICO charges. They are going to court employees' homes on weekends to question them about various issues. The County Supervisors have shut down funding for various projects being undertaken by the Sheriff and the County Atty. Judges have been slamming the county's attorneys and have sent a sheriff's deputy to jail (for stealing notes from a defense atty in open court and not apologizing for it). Criminal defense attorneys are trying to buy time for their clients by saying that the County Attorney can't prosecute them in Superior Court because of the ongoing conflict. TPM has occasionally checked in on our surreal mess.

Today, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court acted to try to prevent the court system from being part of the problem. She issued an administrative order appointing a former Chief Justice, Ruth McGregor, as a Special Master to oversee the Maricopa County mud fight. It will be a tough sandbox to referee and/or to dry out all the mud, but McGregor (who actually was a school teacher before law school) now has the power to appoint judges, issue subpoenas, hold hearings, etc.

No doubt, (just about) all Maricopa County residents are rooting hard for her!

CBO's Analysis of Republicans' Big Healthcare Game-Changer: Tort Reform

2009-11-24T20:00:27Z

I just re-watched my two Senators yapping (with others) about how the Republicans have not had a chance to put their reform proposals forward, how they can "do something", etc. And, through all of the Republican outcry, they keep coming back to how important it is for tort reform to be part of the mix. Although I am philosophically opposed to their decades-long push to cap damage awards in malpractice cases, I began to wonder how much they think it would save us. From the way they talk, you would think enacting their tort reform proposal would eliminate the need for us to address the rest of the system.

Wow! Not only did I not realize how tort reform would NOT save more than either the House or the Senate bills would, but it is just about ALL of the savings that the Republicans want to put forward.

My conclusions are based primarily upon the CBO/JCT's Nov. 4 evaluation of the House Republicans' proposed amendment. Verbatim, here is what the CBO/JCT letter said:

Limits on costs related to medical malpractice ("tort reform"), including

capping noneconomic and punitive damages and making changes in the

allocation of liability. CBO expects that those limits would reduce health

care costs directly--by reducing premiums for medical liability insurance

and associated costs--and indirectly by slightly reducing the utilization of

health care services. Over the 2010-2019 period, those changes would

reduce spending on mandatory programs by about $41 billion and would

increase revenues by $13 billion as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of

private health insurance plans (which would result in a shift of some

workers' compensation from nontaxable health insurance benefits to taxable

wages).

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf (emphasis added)

So, the tort reform proposal (which I am assuming is similar to the ones that Republicans have been unable to pass when they had control of the House/Senate/White House) does account for 79% of their plan ($54B out of $68B), but it pales in comparison to the $81B or the $104B which the Senate Finance proposal or the House-passed bill, respectively, reduce the federal budget deficit in the first 10 years. (To say nothing of the savings to the states or to individuals.)

Next time you hear the GOP tout tort reform as a magic pill for our healthcare system, give them the CBO/JCT's second opinion.

Forget ASU-UA! Sarah Palin-Garrison Keillor would be a REAL "Duel In the Desert"

2009-11-20T19:47:33Z

For a moment, forget the big rivalry football game next week, THIS could really be something! Last night, while picking up some - OK, a LOT of - toilet paper, I learned that my neighborhood Costco is going to be hosting Sarah Palin on Dec. 1. Very exciting - although the employees I spoke with last night and this a.m. were much less-than-thrilled by both the circus that will break out (I'm sure Fox will find thousands with McCain/Palin placards) and by the fmr-Gov herself.

This morning, I received an e-mail reminding me that Garrison Keillor will be at my local independent bookseller (Yay,Changing Hands Bookstore ) Nov. 29, the day after the UA-ASU game here in Tempe. If each hung out for an extra day....

Just like that, it hit me: what if we could get these two folksy characters together for their own "Duel In the Desert"? I think Garrison is too polite to run up the score, yet I could certainly see Sarah stepping down in the middle of the debate.

I'm SURE we can collectively work up a routine to rival Carlin's baseball vs. football comparison!