This week in progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Let me know via comments or Kosmail if you have a favorite state- or city-based blog you think I should be watching.
Inclusion of a diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement or endorsement of its contents.
At ColoradoPols.com, Colorado Pols writes—Don’t Discriminate Against the Elderly; Everyone Else is Fair Game:
Freshman Senator Laura Woods (R-Arvada) is up for re-election in 2016, and that means Senate District 19 will be one of the most heavily-contested legislative races of the cycle. Republicans may wish they could get rid of her (and they might try), because she has been nothing short of her own negative advertisement during her first few months in the Senate.
“We don’t want to discriminate against the elderly, so that is why they were excluded in this bill.”
Senator Woods was again on the Senate floor today speaking in favor of her “Right to Discriminate” legislation (SB15-069) that seeks to repeal anti-discrimination laws put on the books just a few years ago. Under existing law, employees have rights against discrimination based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, or ancestry; Republican-aligned business interests have opposed these laws because they fear “frivolous lawsuits,” and Woods has been just the person to carry this leaking pail of water around the Capitol in 2015.
Woods wants to get rid of almost all of the anti-discrimination protections created in the “Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2013,” but she has rendered her own arguments moot by insisting on one solitary exception. Woods believes that Colorado should only have anti-discrimination laws that protect the elderly, an absurd stance to take on an already ridiculous policy idea. As Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) said in a press release, “It doesn’t make sense. A 77-year-old white man, like me, is protected under the bill still, but a 60-year-old African American is not. Why?”
It’s not like this bill was a late addition to the calendar that caught some people off guard; Woods introduced this bill in January, and has been taking heavy blows in the media ever since. Did Senate Republicans not realize that Woods would be so vocal in her support of an exception for the elderly? Have they not been paying attention to the words that are coming out of her mouth?
Below the orange gerrymander are more excerpts from progressive state blogs.
At Bleeding Heartland of Iowa, desmoinesdem writes—Who will be Jim Webb's potential Iowa caucus supporters?
As first reported by Pat Rynard last week, former U.S. Senator Jim Webb has hired an Iowa state director for his upcoming presidential campaign.
Rania Batrice has worked more recently in other states but ran Representative Dave Loebsack's 2008 re-election campaign in IA-02 and worked on the John Edwards campaign in Iowa before the 2008 caucuses.
The hiring comes shortly after Webb told the International Association of Fire Fighters to "stay tuned," because he may be asking for their support again. He and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley will be featured speakers at the Polk County Democrats' Fourth Annual Awards Dinner in Des Moines on April 10.
Webb has convinced me that he will go through with a presidential campaign; I wasn't sure after seeing so little activity this winter, beyond creating an exploratory committee. I'm still not clear on what his niche would be in a Democratic field now dominated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. My conversations with numerous reliable caucus-goers suggest to me that the "anyone but Hillary" contingent is much smaller among Iowa Democrats today than it was in 2007.
Moreover, Democratic activists who are not sold on Clinton seem to prefer a more progressive alternative such as Senator Elizabeth Warren. Webb's voting record and statements on various issues during his six years as a senator from Virginia suggest a middle-of-the-road Democrat. He is not a "conservadem" like Evan Bayh or Joe Lieberman, but he's no liberal lion like Bernie Sanders either.
At
Delaware Liberal,
pandora writes—
While More Men Are Wanting Babies/More Women Are Considering The Child-Free Option:
I find stuff like this fascinating.
In a nationally representative survey of single, childless people in 2011, more men than women said they wanted kids. (On the other hand, more women reported seeking independence in their relationships, personal space, interests, and hobbies.) A different poll from 2013 echoed those findings, with more than 80 percent of men saying they’d always wanted to be a father or at least thought they would be someday. Just 70 percent of women felt the same. |
It really hasn’t been that long since women actually had control in having children. My grandparents had a lot of children. Without effective birth control (along with societal and religious expectations) people of that generation had a lot of kids. The Pill came onto the scene in my mother’s generation—and there was much rejoicing!—however, the idea that people get married and have kids was still the only plan on the table.
At
Uppity Wisconsin,
Man MKE writes—
If nothing else angers you about the Walker agenda, this should.:
... And it's all summed up in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel headline this morning:
Elderly, disabled among those hit hardest by cut in food stamp benefits
When Wisconsin Republicans led by Gov. Scott Walker garblefarb their way through each new day, spreading disinformation and patting themselves on the backs for going after the state's middle class, almost everyone is distracted from even bigger Republican shame: They are busy unraveling the state's social safety net at warp speed.
As you'll discover reading the above Journal Sentinel piece, this particular problem didn't originate in the Badger state. Rather, it began in D.C., where congressional Republicans forced cuts in the federal Food Stamp program (known here as Foodshare). In particular, the Repubs targeted LIHEAP, a program that provides winter heating assistance in conjunction with food aid. Because, apparently, poor people simply get too much help, even in this state's execrable, increasingly low-wage economy.
Here's why the shame falls so heavily on Walker and state GOP lawmakers. Many states saw the folly of the cutbacks by Congress and how those cuts would cause misery among too many of their residents, so they took action at home to fix this latest assault on America's most vulnerable populations.
Only three states didn't fix the problem, all of them controlled by Republicans: New Jersey, Michigan and (you guessed it) Wisconsin. Here, Walker waved off any fix, saying it wasn't the governor's job. Instead, apparently, it's the governor's job to run around the country and beg for billionaire bucks to fund his presidential campaign, telling everyone how tough he's been on spending, and how tough on just about everyone who isn't in the topmost one percent.
At
Progress Illinois,
Ellyn Fortino writes—
Report Calls Attention To Racial Divide Among Low-Income Illinois Families:
Minority working families are about twice as likely to be low-income than white working families at both the national level and in Illinois.
That's one of the key findings of a new report by the Working Poor Families Project, a national initiative focused on strengthening state-level policies to help working families attain economic security.
Illinois is home to over 400,000 low-income working families, representing 30 percent of all working families in the state, according to the report. Low-income working families are defined as those with incomes below 200 percent of the official poverty level.
Forty-six percent of all minority working families in Illinois were low-income in 2013, compared with 20 percent of white, non-Hispanic working families.
At
HorsesAss of Washington,
Goldy writes—
Dave Reichert Sucks Up to Blethens, Reads Shameful “Death Tax” Lie into Congressional Record:
US Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA8) is widely rumored to be considering a run for governor in 2016. And what better way to prepare for a campaign than to suck up to Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen by repeating his editorial board’s shameless anti-estate tax lies?
In my home state there are numerous examples of the harmful impact of the death tax. In Seattle, permanent relief from the death tax is critical for family-owned businesses like the Seattle Times Company, which is a fourth and fifth-generation family business. And, in my own District, in Issaquah, Washington, last year, a family had to make the difficult choice to sell their farm which had been family run for over 120 years. That is a devastating decision to have to make, and they are not alone in making it. |
That was from Reichert’s opening remarks at a March 18 congressional hearing on “The Burden of the Estate Tax on Family Businesses and Farms,” and it is of course a total fucking lie. As I painstakingly documented last August, there is absolutely no way the McBride family was forced to sell the family farm in order to pay either the state or federal estate tax, because 1) Ralph McBride’s property was too small to be subject to either the state or federal estate tax, 2) working farms are entirely exempt from Washington’s estate tax, and 3) the McBride property was not a working farm!
The story is simply not true. In fact, there is zero evidence of a family ever being forced to sell the farm in order to pay off the estate tax, anywhere ever. And yet there goes Reichert, faithfully reading this bullshit into the congressional record.
At
Scrutiny Hooligans of North Carolina,
Tom Sullivan writes—
‘You eat what you kill’:
You know, when I saw that headline in the Guardian, I thought I was looking at a decade-late review of the 2004 Vin Diesel film, The Chronicles of Riddick. If you missed Chronicles on cable, the film’s Big Bad (h/t to you Buffy fans) is a murderous group of interstellar religious fanatics called the Necromongers. They rampage across the galaxy, like ISIS in space ships, converting or killing everyone in their paths. They also “believe heavily in a philosophy that says ‘you keep what you kill’, believing that ending another’s life entitles you to their property and position.” Having screwed investors, thrown families from their homes, brought the planet to its economic knees, and demanded tribute (bailouts) lest they take us all down with them, that pretty much describes Wall Street’s philosophy these days, too. Which is why, as Suzanne McGee writes, “’You eat what you kill’ is the motto on many a trading desk.”
What Wall Street doesn’t believe in is its own bullshit, business school catechism about how in a meritocracy pay is a function of celestial mechanics that must not be perturbed lest we offend the Market gods—pay is an elegant function of one’s contribution to the enterprise’s bottom line. How do we know they don’t believe this?
… Wall Street’s profits aren’t what they used to be. Pretax profits fell 4.2% in 2014 to $16 billion, according to New York’s office of the state comptroller. If you think that sounds like a relatively modest decline, consider that 2014 profits were 33% below 2012 levels, and a whopping 74% below 2009, when Wall Street posted record results as markets zoomed back to life after the crisis and banks profited from ultra-low asset values and interest rates. |
So what? Well, in spite of the falloff, bonuses rose for the second straight year, with “a 30.1% decline in profitability, and a 15% increase in bonus payments” in 2013, followed by a more modest 2% increase this year.
At
BlueOregon,
Megan Schrader writes—
Protecting Oregonians' privacy in life – and death:
What happens to our digital communications when we die? As technology is increasingly integrated into the daily human experience, what becomes of a person’s online life in the event of their death or incapacitation is an issue that Oregon lawmakers are facing this legislative session.
At issue: under what circumstances can an executor of a person’s estate gain access to the contents of the broad array of personal, private digital communications after a person dies —including one’s emails, chats, social media messages, online dating profiles, and other conversations with family, friends, doctors and clergy.
Current federal law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), protects the privacy of our online communication content when we are living and after we die. Without express consent from the sender or recipient, or a court order or warrant, contents of online communications cannot be released after death or incapacitation.
How do policymakers resolve an executor’s need to access certain online records—such as determining where the deceased held a bank account—to close an estate without violating federal law, the privacy of the deceased, and the privacy of everyone who communicated with that person?
Oregon House Bill 2647, the Privacy Expectation Afterlife and Choices Act (PEAC), supported by technology companies, privacy and consumer protection groups and low-income advocates, protects user choices and keeps privacy as the default. If a person indicates what is to be done with an account in a will or through online user tools, such as Google Inactive Account Manager, that choice is respected.
A competing bill moving through the legislature, Senate Bill 369, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) approaches this issue very differently. This bill sets exposure of communication as the default unless a person has hired an attorney to state in a will what is to be done with each of their digital communication accounts.
At
Raging Chicken Press of Pennsylvania,
Sean Kitchen writes—
Cry Baby Caucus Throws Temper Tantrum Over School Districts Tracking Education Spending:
Yesterday, the Cry Baby Caucus in the House and Senate threw a temper tantrum after Governor Wolf’s acting Department of Education Secretary Pedro Rivera sent letters to all the school districts across the state asking for spending reports in order to get state money. [...]
It’s pretty simple to see what Governor Wolf and Pedro Rivera are asking for. They want all the school districts to file reports that shows where the state’s money will go in those districts. These can go to restoring programs like arts and music that were decimated by the Corbett Cuts and to rehiring teachers, restoring athletic programs and so forth. Watching where the money goes and making sure state money is not being wasted seems …. fiscally prudent. But don’t tell that to the Cry Baby Caucus that is Republican Leadership.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Jake Corman, Appropriations Chair Pat Browne, Majority Whip John Gordner, Senate Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and Education Chair Lloyd Smucker all issued a press release (published below) calling Pedro Rivera’s letter a “political stunt by the Wolf Administration completely disregards the need for the legislative process” that falls into government overreaching its “executive power by mandating that Pennsylvania school districts provide the Department of Education with reporting of how non-appropriated funding would be spent.”
No really.
At
The Seminole Democrat of Florida,
Vin Fl writes—
Rick Scott Spending Hundreds of Thousands Of Taxpayer Money on Lawyer Fees -:
This could have all been avoided if more people freaking decided to show up on election day.
Rick Scott's illicit removal of the top law enforcement commissioner with no public vote means a dozen of taxpayer-funded lawyers that are charging up to $400 EACH HOUR. On top of that, if Scott and his Cabinet lose, which is likely, all of the first amendment groups and media outlets suing would be entitled to have their fees and costs recouped.
Scott and Cabinet members have in-house counsel but are allowed under our stupid state to hire expensive outside attorneys while in office for actions "made in the course of duty".
This is hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have gone to save the rape crisis centers that Rick cut. Or money that could have gone to our suffering roads, schools, or heck, even donated to an animal shelter that takes in abandoned dogs—like Rick Scott's puppy.
At the
Dakota Free Press,
caheidelberger writes—
Indian Activists Take Grievances to Philip; O’Connell Pleads Not Guilty in Rapid:
James Magaska Swan, founder of the United Urban Warrior Society, led about eight protesters to Philip Tuesday to demand apologies from the men accused of throwing beer and racial insults at American Indian kids at a hockey game in Rapid City. Swan’s group went to Philip because that’s the hometown of Trace O’Connell, the only person officially charged with any crime over the January 24 incident.
Now if Indians are mad and Philippians are racists, this rally could have been ugly. But press accounts indicate there were no fisticuffs, just stern talk, cookies, and a lot of cops. Swan said his people came to “count coup,” a reference to the traditional warrior practice of striking but not killing an enemy to demonstrate courage and gain prestige, but emphasized that they were coming “in a good way! Seeking only justice!” Mayor Mike Vetter spoke, saying O’Connell isn’t “indicative of the mindset” (Ann-erika White Bird’s words) of the whole town but declining to offer any apology for actions not yet adjudicated.
That adjudication will be complicated. O’Connell pled not guilty to his one disorderly conduct charge yesterday. His attorney Patrick Duffy, who has done valuable legal work for South Dakota’s Native people but now is banned by tribal order from the Pine Ridge Reservation, said after the hearing, “This is actually one hell of a story; it just didn’t happen.” Without Rapid City Attorney Joel Landeen’s agreement not to seek jail time for O’Connell, Duffy says he’ll demand a jury trial, and seating a jury won’t be easy
At
Ohio Daily,
Anastasia Pantsios writes—
Jeb Bush for President? Is That Some Kind of Joke?
Jeb Bush—for real?
Seriously, isn’t it time the media and Beltway wise men gave up this idea that a familiar name is the most valuable thing you can have in an election? Sure, I get the name recognition thing. What I don’t get is the idea that you can only START the race—two years, three years, four years out—with a name people know. No matter WHAT they know.
I mean, ok, forget Hillary Clinton and Ted Strickland for a minute.
Someone tell me, why is Jeb Bush a thing? Why is he considered viable by anyone at all?
Look: the name is “Bush.” As in one of the worst presidents of all time who left us with a deep recession and two wars. As in an unpopular president who lost as the incumbent after his first term. That’s BUSH — B-U-S-H.