Is Arizona the hub for turning out the Hispanic vote nationally in 2012?

All of a sudden President Obama is interested in Arizona.  He probably wrote it off in 2008 running against home grown John McCain, but he might have viewed the state in a different way had the Hispanic population been the factor then it is projected to be in 2012.  Activists are popping up everywhere and drives are active to get Latinos registered to vote.  With former State Sen. Russell Pearce, the racist who authored SB-1070 voted out of office, there is hope.   

Arizona’s Hispanic voting-age population has jumped from 455,000 nine years ago to 845,000 today, 19 percent of the state’s population eligible to vote.  These are daunting numbers when you consider just how much mock Gov. Jan Brewer and her lackeys in the Arizona’s legislature have pissed off Latinos.  One recent show of force was indicated by Hispanic firefighter Daniel Valenzuela beating a white businesswoman for a spot on the Phoenix City Council.  Latinos also played a big part in the defeat of Russell Pearce.

Obama’s chances to get the majority of the Hispanic vote is enhanced by the continued inflexible position Republican candidates are taking against Latinos.  With Arizona as the center of the anti-immigration movement, and the GOP firmly entrenched in its similar stance, plus rejuvenated movers and shakers out there touting the anti-immigration rhetoric, there’s little doubt that Hispanics will be fired up in 2012.

 

And then there’s Richard Carmona, a former U.S. surgeon general in President George W. Bush's administration, an Independent supported by Pres. Obama, running to fill Sen. Jon Kyl’s vacated seat.  If the map that has been presented by the Arizona Redistricting Commission stays in place, the fairer districts, according to everyone but Republicans, will give the Dems. a shot at U.S. Representative seats. 

Taking Arizona in 2012 is not really that far-fetched considering Obama won 45 percent of the state running against McCain in 2008.  But there are still the economics of the upcoming election and people’s financial situation plus continuing joblessness will affect the President, although the unemployment rate has dropped recently to 8.6 percent nationally.

Democrats are hoping to register approximately 300,000 new Latinos to vote prior to November 2012.  Add to that the 400,000 already registered already and you have a formidable force.  If they can be convinced to vote.  Even if they are legal in Arizona some Hispanics are still scared to stand up against the likes of Russell Pearce who still has plenty of anti-immigrant followers.

One bright spot, Colorado, by the grace of former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo’s drive to alienate Latinos in his state, was able to sign up 225,000 new Hispanics who voted in the 2008 election turning the state from red to blue.  Within 6 months of fake Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signing anti-immigration law SB-1070 in 2010, 43,000 new Latinos were registered to vote in Colorado.  Obama would love to see a blue Arizona but am sure he would settle for the color purple.

Will Congress adjourn without extending payroll tax and unemployment compensation?



Pres. Obama, Speaker Boehner

While the two houses bicker over how to pay for the tax cuts with one relentless on not raising taxes, millions of Americans cannot enjoy their holidays with the thought that 2012 will only bring more financial problems.  The payroll tax cut covers 160 million Americans, and the extended unemployment compensation 6 million.  The former could cut at least $1,000 from the average paycheck next year and the latter would eliminate $300 from average monthly unemployment benefits.

If Congress takes no action, this will cancel some $165 billion from the economy in 2012.  All because we have a band of dysfunctional legislative morons in Washington.  And folks we put them there but we can remove them in 2012.  And there is an additional issue of heading off the scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors next year, something that could affect future medical care to seniors.

According to CNN Money, the Democrats want a tax on millionaires producing $155 billion over 10 years.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charging mortgage lenders more; estimated revenue $38 billion.  Ban millionaires from receiving unemployment benefits and food stamps saving $127 billion over ten years.

Republicans would limit pay and the size of the federal workforce plus a 3-year extension on the current 2-year freeze on pay for civilian employees and members of Congress.  This would save $222 billion over 10 years.  Also they would only extend the pay freeze for another year, saving $26 billion over 10 years.  Changing the rules for retirement for federal civilian retirees would save $37 billion over 10 years.  Charge millionaires more for Medicare saving $9.2 billion over 10 years.  And increase premiums on high income households by 15 percent saving $31 billion over 10 years.



There is more but the above is the substance of where the left and the right are coming from.  The Dems concentrating on the inequities of wealth in the private and corporate sectors for revenue.  The GOP placing the burden on the backs of the middle class federal workforce, except for concessions on congressional pay raises and Medicare payments for the rich that are already blatantly obvious.

Republicans in Congress are daring Democrats to scuttle their bill that they claim comes to the aid of the middle class.  Eric Cantor (R) Virginia, bases this on tax cuts and job creation he claims is built into the GOP legislation.  It is all but certain the bill will fail in the Democrat controlled Senate.

So back to the original question.  Will this inept body be able to salvage the future of the American working public or will they go home for Christmas each laying the blame on the other side?  If this happens, they will have to face the voter’s Grinch in 2012.

Did CBS’ “60 Minutes” bolster Pres. Obama’s tax on wealthy?

My suspicious mind has gotten me in trouble before, but don’t you think it might be just a little more than coincidental that "60 Minutes" combined Barack Obama’s interview this past Sunday with billionaire Warren Buffett?  The Warren Buffett who said he thinks millionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, supporting the President’s plan to raise revenue through a fairer share from the wealthy.  The Warren Buffett who engendered backing from other fellow patriotic millionaires to ease the plight on middle income Americans through fairer taxes.

Warren Buffett with Pres. Obama 

The President announced recently that “some of the wealthiest” pay a considerably smaller rate as a percentage of their taxes than those with less income.  Specifically, 25 percent of millionaires pay a tax rate that is below that of the middle-class.  There are even some billionaires with a tax rate as low as 1 percent.  With Buffett’s approach, some 25 percent of the very high income group could be affected.  Grover Norquist has been squirming since Warren Buffett started his crusade, and must have lost his dinner after the CBS “60 Minutes.”

This whole brouhaha results from the fact that many rich Americans’ incomes come from tax investments that are taxed at a lower rate than the average Joe and Jane’s salaries.  When you combine that with additional perfectly legal tax loopholes, these tycoons’ tax rates dip even lower.  Many of us get tax breaks such as mortgage interest deductions, savings for retirement and capital gains or losses.  But it is entirely possible that we will have to give up these shelters in response to raising taxes on the wealthy to balance out the inequity.

Obama has stated that the rich can chip away at their tax burden and that is “the height of unfairness.”  So enter the Buffett Rule named after billionaire Warren Buffett who has made it clear to Congress that the wealthy should be taxed more.  His appeal continues to fall on deaf ears because no one is willing to cross Norquist and the pledge the GOP made to him to raise no taxes.

In a recent survey by CBS News/NYT, the question was asked to the American public, “Should million-dollar households get tax increase?”  Here are the results:

          All     Reps    Dems Inds

Yes    65%  38%      80%    68% 

No      30     59         16       25

With an overwhelming majority of people wanting this tax increase, even 38 percent of Republicans, it is hard to understand how the GOP can stick to their pledge.  Their excuse that it will slow the economy has been refuted by some top economists due to the long-range nature of the tax increase, and the only other opposition would be the fear of taxing those Republicans who donate the most to their reelection campaigns.

 

President Obama put it simply on “60 Minutes;” the GOP took a look at an economy in the tank, created by George W. Bush’s administration and his rightist minions, and decided to do nothing during Obama’s four years until they could elect their own president.  From the ilk of the current Republicans running in the primary, they made a bad decision.  But hopefully the American voter won’t forget this scheming chicanery in 2012.

Read more here.

What does being an Independent really mean?

Jackie Salit, Pres. CUIP

When the Independent voting movement began to get wind in its sails, a group called the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) was formed and has become the spokespeople for those who don’t wish to be connected to either political party.  There are a lot of those folks these days and the ranks have swollen to 40 percent of the voting public.  They have helped decide recent elections and will continue to do so in the future.  The big question for most of us is what do they look like?

According to Sarah Lyons, Director of Communications for CUIP, The Washington Post called them “The Misunderstood Independent.”  If you were a former Democrat, you might have joined the group because they sounded like a bunch of progressives.  If coming from the Republican side, you might have imagined the makeup was more conservative.  Well, it’s neither, at least in specificity, rather a formerly meandering crowd of disgruntled voters that found their way with the amazingly simple designation of Independent.



CUIP was there to pick up the pieces and mold these wanderers into a meaningful body of serious voters that are passionate about their country, but have demands that don’t neatly fit into the Dems or GOP framework.  CUIP has not pursued a third party and there is no central manifesto on which they operate.  You have to learn to understand this philosophy or trying to figure out an Independent will drive you crazy.  Pew Research says it is Americans trying to ditch the kind of partisanship that has brought Congress’ approval rating to the lowest ever. 

If you look at the Pew study, "Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology,” it makes it clear that Independents aren’t the center of the American political system; they are in fact a contradictory band of individuals who have strong beliefs that they want to see materialize in Washington.  And they don’t feel the job is getting done by either Republicans or Democrats.  Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic quotes Vincent Hutchings, professor of political science at the U. of Michigan, as breaking down Independents one-third each Democrat, Republican and true independent.

Lyons of CUIP says Pew came up with the same findings they have during their organization of Independents over the years:  “Independents are not in the middle between Democrats and Republicans. Rather, they want to move beyond the confines of parties altogether.”  She adds: “independents are attuned to the fact that partisanship is not a behavioral issue—it is a structural one.”  They are questioning the very structure of the current political system and want to do something about it.  Like adding open primaries and nonpartisan elections.

But if the Independent threat in their numbers is meant to change Congress from its dysfunctional state, it has failed so far.  At least on the GOP side that refuses to even consider raising taxes on the rich.  An interesting recent survey came up with the fact that more than two-thirds of Americans want to increase taxes on the wealthy, including a majority of Republicans.  Even larger numbers feel that Medicare and Social Security should remain untouched.  If I was the GOP, and I mean at every level of office in this country, I would be scared to death.  But the question, of course, is will these people vote their opinions or fall back into the rut of backing a comfortable incumbent?

The movement to remove members of Congress in-mass is a valid cry for help from the American public.  All 435 House members and one-third of Senators are up for reelection every two years.  We have a chance to knock off all of the House and a third of the Senate in 2012.  If we don’t complete the job next year, there’s still 2014 to get the rest of the House and another third of the Senate.  Maybe even put some Independents in office.  By then if we haven’t scared these morons in Washington and convinced them who they are working for, we finish the job in 2016.

Iowa attacks Romney on religion, Obama on being socialist

Outwardly, social conservatives in Iowa have labeled Mitt Romney as a “flip-flopper,” while others challenge his Mormon faith.  These people are scrambling for a candidate they can endorse that will beat Romney in the upcoming first-in-the-nation caucus on January 3, 2012.  So far it looks like Newt Gingrich is in the lead with Ron Paul following and Romney coming in third.  Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman pretty much out of the race.  So what are they worried about?

Actually this was all happening before Gingrich’s recent surge in the polls that many wonder if it is for real or just another phase in the republican race of candidates no one really wants.  There was skepticism, however, whether or not the Iowa social conservatives could support any of the candidates.  These include groups like the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, The Family Leader, the group Iowa Right to Life, and a representative for the Iowa chapter of Concerned Women for America.

This anti-Romney movement appears to be located only in Iowa, which is known for having its religious preferences.  What is most disturbing is the fact that having the first election in 2012 on January 3 draws a lot of attention to the state, and so far all we are hearing is a religious bias toward the Mormon Church.  This sounds very similar to the critics of John F. Kennedy running for president in 1960 when they questioned whether a Catholic should be elected to the office.



There was also an official cloak of secrecy over the meeting with participants agreeing not to divulge what took place.  A Marshalltown church minister claims social conservatives are really not sure of Mitt Romney’s positions on marriage between the same sex and abortion.  Same-sex marriage in Iowa became legal on April 3, 2009.  The latest year I could find a record for abortions, 2007, there were 6,637.  Either the social conservatives are not keeping up with the facts or they are fighting a losing battle.

And then there’s the radical, in another world, Iowa Tea Party and their continued fight against President Obama.  Hey you lunatics, he won in 2008 and he’ll win again in 2012.  Ryan Rhodes, a member of the Iowa Tea Party Revolution, and from Decorah, complained to Mr. Obama that the Democrats have accused the Tea Party of being terrorists.  As far as I am concerned TPers are just simple minded people with double-digit IQs, no matter what part of the country they come from.

As the President was leaving the event, Rhodes was quoted as saying he believes Obama is a Socialist.  I am surprised this fruitcake didn’t ask him for his birth certificate.  Pathetic.

Is political reform hopeless?

In a recent “Lexington” column in The Economist written by Peter David, he asks: “Is anybody not complaining about the present state of American politics?” Well, maybe some of those so apathetic they never bother to participate in the political process, yet are still the ones who complain the most. Like we used to say in the Navy, ‘there’s always that 2 percent.’ But they aren’t the ones David is talking about, rather, those of us who do get involved, some on a daily basis, and still cannot figure out what’s going on in Washington.



Congress in gridlock

 What we are involved in is the antithesis of two political parties with ideologies that conflict at every level, with one side never willing to negotiate and the other too willing at times. Based on a representation of the extremes with all Republicans and many Democrats, the majority of voters remain unrepresented. Republicans refuse to even consider a tax increase, based on a commitment to Grover Norquist, and Democrats continue to pander to the GOP on this issue plus agreeing to cut entitlements.

Although Barack Obama is not facing a challenge in the primary, he might have if some deep-pocketed Democratic donors had had their way. They looked for someone to yank the campaign out of its centrism position and pull it back to the left, and apparently Russ Feingold, former Wisconsin Senator, was the choice. But success eluded the group because nobody wanted to run; some say the reason was they didn’t want to be the one to topple the country’s first Black president.

But others believe 2012 could end up like 1948, when the newspapers had already announced Thomas Dewey as the winner, and in fact Harry Truman had won the election. Another case, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination, the right wing conservatives could decide to run their own candidate or Ron Paul could run as an Independent or with the Libertarian Party. This would split the Republican vote, giving Obama a distinct advantage. Once again, ideology over common sense.

There is still one more situation that could throw a wrench into both the Dems and GOP. A new group calling itself “Americans Elect” will hold an online nominating convention of its own in June. The purpose is not to create a third party, but rather it will hold an online nominating convention. AE will use the Internet to select a presidential candidate from any party who will then choose a running mate from a different party. Peter Ackerman, a philanthropist, is one of the wealthy backers.



The key is getting on state ballots, and so far they have 2 million out of the 3 million necessary to accomplish this. There is even hope that the Americans Elect campaign could attract such high profile figures as Michael Bloomberg. The New York Mayor decided against running as an Independent in 2008, but this new approach to the election process could get him or others interested. It sorta puts a dent in the Independent movement, even though their claim to fame seems only to split voters from party affiliations into a non-party affiliation. They apparently have no interest in running their own candidate.

Whatever happens, we can’t afford the case where an independent gets enough votes to prevent a majority. In that case the Constitution turns the decision over to a GOP controlled House of Representatives, which would prove a disaster for progressives and the rest of the country as well. So what do we do? Returning to the original question, “Is political reform hopeless?” You be the judge because if it is to be successful, it depends on you and me. If it is hopeless, we are getting closer and closer to the fall and decline of the American democracy.

Arizona’s tough Sheriff Joe Arpaio challenges Obama birth certificate

This is one of those, ‘how many times are they going to go down this road’ issues.  Every time it is pursued, there is conclusive proof that the President’s birth certificate is valid. But Arpaio dredged it up again, probably for the publicity it will get him, giving it the credibility of an investigation demanded by the people of Maricopa, County in Arizona.  But then, what else would we expect from a state that has given us a bogus Gov. Jan brewer, and a racist bigot who led the state Senate, Russell Pearce?

And where else would the complaint Arpaio is investigating come from other than the Tea Party?  These are the same people, although from another local chapter, who placed fake candidate Olivia Cortes on the ballot in the recall election of Russell Pearce.  Legitimate challenger Jerry Lewis won handily, hopefully putting Pearce out to pasture permanently.  Arpaio backed Russell Pearce, as he did Andrew Thomas, who is facing disciplinary hearings with the Arizona state bar over questionable prosecutions.  And the latest, Sheriff Joe supports Rick Perry for president.

You have to wonder about this man’s judgment.  Randy Parraz, who organized the recall against Pearce, says Arpaio is next if he doesn’t back off on the “extremist brand of politics” exhibited by Thomas and Pearce.  Arpaio even looked bad in an investigation by fellow Sheriff Paul Babeu of nearby Pinal County, which resulted in the dismissal of three of Arpaio’s top deputies.  With newly energized Hispanics from the Pearce recall, at the worst Arpaio could be voted out in 2012 due to his actions against illegal immigrants.

Racist Russell Pearce with Joe Arpaio

Latinos accounted for 13 percent of the voters who supported Jerry Lewis in the recall election against Russell Pearce.  Lewis won by 53.4 percent to 45.3, proving that the Hispanic vote will determine the outcome of several elections in 2012.  It could rid the state of a bunch of conservative radicals that have placed Arizona in the limelight of ridicule for the past couple of years.  And there are many who say, if the progressives can pull it off in Arizona, they can do it throughout the U.S.

And while Arpaio continues his sweeps of illegal immigrants, arrests of illegals along the U.S., Mexico border are at the lowest level since the Nixon administration.  Even the Border Patrol is now concentrating on illegals with criminal records, realizing many of these Hispanics are working at jobs here and making a contribution.

But the latest that Sheriff Joe has to contend with are charges that he failed to investigate over 400 sex crimes over a three-year period ending in 2007.  Some of these were molestations of undocumented immigrants.  In El Mirage, where the sheriff provides policing services, suspects were even known in all but 6 of 32 cases.  Victims were as young as two, but the Arpaio’s deputies failed to follow through, leaving the cases hanging in limbo.

Obama with birth certificate

So the residents of Maricopa County, and the whole state of Arizona, should be wondering why Joe Arpaio is placing emphasis on some inane investigation of Obama’s birth certificate, when he should be going after predators who prey on the state’s children.  But again, no one ever seems surprised by the boneheaded politics of Arizona.  It’s just the way the state does business…at least today.