Cuéntame used Facebook to garner the support and moolah to fund the project.  38,000 Likes is nothing to sneeze at, and it’s a great use of social media. However, it pale-pale-pales in comparison to the pro-SB1070 group (over 98k Likes). Seeing that just depressed me. If you want to give a shout out to your anti-SB1070 inclinations, you can Like Cuéntame here.

But back to the billboard. We’ll get to see it for a few weeks, so make sure you get over to Camelback and 3rd St. to check it out for yourself. This is from the press release Cuéntame sent us:

Members of Cuentame collectively designed and funded the billboard which will remain on display for four weeks and serve as a constant reminder that the fight against SB1070 is not over.

You can also read what the Arizona Republic has to say about the billboard.

Thanks to Cuéntame for sending us the press release.

But like I said, while I’m very happy for my LGBT brothers and sisters today, this is about me! Me me me!!

Judge Walker’s decision notes that attorneys for the defendants were from a coalition of social conservative organizations. Gov. Schwartzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were named as defendants in the suit but both declined to participate. The defense team is affiliated with Protect Marriage, the official campaign for the 2008 ballot initiative. On the campaign’s website protectmarriage.com, you can find a pdf of the Witherspoon Report, a 2006 issue paper that was the basis for much of the pro-Prop 8 testimony in the trial. Brief synopsis: Marriage is really, really, really good for society. Really. Especially for children. Oh, and marriage can only be between a man and a woman because men and women bring different skill sets to the union which are necessary for the proper raising of children. Did we mention that marriage is all about the children?

Starting on page 24 the report describes what authors see as the Four Threats to Marriage. They are: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and Teh Gheys. Say, the first three mostly involve straight people, don’t they? And divorce breaks up more marriages than, well, anything, doesn’t it? But I digress. I must take umbrage at the Witherspoon Report and the entire “protect marriage” movement on behalf of myself and heterosexual childless curmudgeons everywhere. Um, helloooo. What am I, chopped liver?

Let me tell you something, Protect Marriage people, you should be keeping closer tabs on me and my ilk. In 2003 19% of women age 40-44 did not have children, compared to 10% in 1976. You’re worried about gay people wanting access to the institution of marriage and (for some of them at least) the opportunity to raise children? Really? You see that as a more pressing threat to your ideal than divorce, single parenthood, cohabitation, and (especially) voluntary childlessness? Seems to me that if you think “procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage”, and you think gay couples should be denied the right to marry based on that, then you must view the reverse as true – that marriage is intrinsically connected to procreation. That means you should be preparing legislation to deny the right to marriage to any couple unable or unwilling to procreate. You should be doing your utmost to stop a childless curmudgeon like me from being able to marry my boyfriend. Along with post-menopausal women and any couple where one or both of them are infertile. Otherwise, it kinda looks like you’re singling out gay people for discrimination.

All this makes this self-absorbed diva feel, you know, left out.

First Things First was passed by voters in 2006. It placed an 80 cent tax on every pack of cigarettes sold in Arizona to fund early childhood health and education programs. The money goes to the state agency created by the proposition, which in turn dispenses grants to various programs through 31 volunteer regional councils. Apparently there are some issues with the program as reported by the AZ Republic back in March and summarized by the Prop 302 Ballotpedia entry:

• At the end of January 2010, the program reportedly possessed $325 million in unspent money, which was more than two-thirds of funds the program had allegedly collected.

• Reports of potential conflicts of interest were alleged in terms of funding.

• Three large non-profit groups have received 50 percent of the First Things First money granted so far. Approximately only 30 percent of the grants awarded were through a competitive grant process. All grants, as expected in the law voters passed, should be awarded through this process.

FTF’s explanation for why they are sitting on so much money makes sense.

Rhian Evans Alvin, executive director of the First Things First Program, stated, “We have money in the bank because we’re required to collect our funding before we actually spend it. We offered them a 6-year, no-interest loan. The governor said ‘yes, we’ll take it,’ the legislature had other ideas – like taking the money and not wanting to pay it back.”

If there really are problems with conflicts of interest they can be addressed without dismantling the entire program and grabbing the money. Same goes with grant processes that aren’t competitive enough. These may be legitimate areas of concern about the FTF program in itself, but as justification for what the Legislature is trying to do they are nothing but red herrings.

FTF and supporters challenged the language of Prop 302 in court, claiming that the language was biased against the program. The lawsuit failed yesterday but I don’t think it would have changed the misleading nature of the measure had it succeeded. Because I guar-an-damn-tee the official language sent to voters will NOT emphasize the most salient aspect of Prop 302, which is that it repeals the First Things First program but NOT the 80 cent tax collected on each pack of cigarettes. That’s right, smokers (who are disproportionately low income) will continue to be regressively taxed (sin taxes are regressive in practice) to allow the Grover Norquist Death Cult in the Legislature to funnel tax cuts to fat cats and cut social services to poor people (who, I remind you, are more likely to smoke) indefinitely. Dude, THAT’S what you call regressive! I might add that this is yet another example of the Grover Norquist Death Cult smuggling in a tax increase, which they signed an oath not to do. Scoundrels, the lot of them. Y’all know I smoke and that I voted for First Things First. I smoke for the children. You’re welcome. If they pull this scam past the voters in November I swear I’m buying all my smokes on the rez.

I’m sure some people will argue that because sin taxes reduce smoking the continuation of the FTF tax is still worthwhile, no matter how the money is used. But I tend to think the public’s disapproval of smoking and desire to punish it will be outweighed by their irritation over dishonest bait and switch tactics. While the results of many elections in Arizona leave me with my head scratching I have to say that the voters get it right on these bogus propositions more often than not (with notable exceptions*). They didn’t fall for the phony payday loan “reform” measure or the fake “stop illegal hiring” one in 2008, despite all the money spent by their corporate backers. Oddly enough, no one’s filed as a contributor to a pro-Prop 302 effort, though the AZ Chamber supports it.

“The state has no good options as it continues to dig out from a fiscal crisis. While the mission of First Things First is one that many in the business community support, the state finds itself in a situation where funding must be prioritized,” (Glenn) Hamer said. “If Proposition 302 were to fail it would almost certainly result in fewer funds being available for health and human services for children.”

You cannot make this stuff up.

* Anti-immigration measures, the gay marriage ban, and the probable success of the upcoming anti-affirmative action referendum.

That said, I wish the lawsuit made a stronger case against SB1070 based on the way it will undoubtedly lead to racial profiling. No matter how hard proponents deny it, the law clearly targets Hispanics in intent, if not in word. Many of the Jim Crow laws of the South didn’t specifically mention race but they were still ultimately found to be unjust and discriminatory by the Supreme Court. With SB1070, there’s no possible way to guarantee that citizens and legal residents will be protected from harassment given the large number of Hispanic residents (and others who may appear Hispanic, like Native Americans) in Arizona. The lawsuit does touch on the issue – It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute – but it doesn’t make a strong and specific statement that it’s de facto racial discrimination.

This sort of parallels what I’ve long seen as a major weakness with both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (which overturned a ban on contraception for married couples). The courts found that there was an implied right to privacy in the Constitution that protected a woman’s right to medical privacy and a couple’s right to marital privacy (subsequent court decisions overturned bans on contraception for unmarried people). I wholeheartedly agree with the privacy argument, but I wish that Griswold and Roe had also been decided on the basis of equal protection under the law for women. Bans and restrictions on abortion and contraception place an undue burden on women of childbearing age that no other group must endure. Had the ability to control reproduction been enshrined into law as a basic civil right for women 40 years ago we may not have seen the many encroachments on access to abortion and contraception that we’ve been seeing all these years.

Of course, as a practical matter you do have to consider the political environment in which you’re operating. The attorneys who argued Griswold and Roe probably figured the privacy argument had the best likelihood of succeeding and it got them to their goal in the end. The current Department of Justice may be reticent to make an overt racial discrimination objection to SB1070 because Obama’s detractors might seize upon it as “political correctness” and undermine their case in the public. And as several lawyer bloggers have pointed out this morning, the preemption case is more airtight and, if it prevails, will nip other states’ attempts to pass similar laws to SB1070 in the bud. That sounds right and in the end I guess I have to be content with flawed* lawsuits that stop really bad laws.

*Perhaps not the best descriptor. Maybe “incomplete” is more accurate.

The front page of the Republic featured a story about 19 business groups, led by the AZ Chamber, taking a brave stance on immigration reform. In the case of the AZ Chamber of Commerce in particular, by “brave” I mean, “realizing their craven silence and capitulation weren’t going unnoticed”. But that wasn’t enough.

Nor was Glenn Hamer’s open letter full of crocodile tears over Barry Wong’s hideous “cut their power off” statement. Touching, really. Such fortitude it takes to write a column full of scathing condemnation for the GOP candidate that his group didn’t endorse.

But nope, still not enough. Today was Rehabilitate the AZ Chamber’s Image Day at the Ministry of Truth. The Republic’s editorial was yet another regurgitation of the Chamber’s talking points – and man is it clear that they got the memo.

They will be pilloried. They will be accused of being part of some monumental “pro-amnesty, open-borders conspiracy.” That charge is the cudgel extremists use to silence reasoned debate.

Oh noes!! Meanwhile, I’ll continue to characterize them as the cowardly, two-faced, cutting-deals-with-Russell-Pearce, Jan Brewer endorsing, tax cuts and cheap labor loving arm of the Arizona GOP that they are.

But here’s the part of the Republic editorial that had me guffawing:

Like those businesspeople who are speaking up, it’s time for others in leadership roles to risk speaking truth in the face of popular distortions.

Religious leaders: Where are you? Arizona needs to hear from you.

Academics: Arizona needs to hear from you.

Sports figures and entertainers: You have a unique ability to reach people. Arizona needs to hear from you.

Politicians: Arizona needs you to speak the truth despite the polls.

What is popular is not always what is right. What’s been happening in Arizona is not right.

Anyone but me remember Los Suns? Remember politicians, religious leaders, entertainers, academics speaking out against bigotry and for immigration reform and being mocked or told to behave by the Republic? Never happened. Down the memory hole it goes.

A little over a week after Pearce introduced S.B. 1070 on the floor of the Arizona Senate, CCA enlisted Highground Consulting, one of the most influential lobbying firms in Phoenix, to represent its interests in the state. Lobby disclosure forms filed with the Arizona Secretary of State indicate that Maricopa County also employed Highground during the time of the bill’s formation. Highground’s owner and principal, Charles “Chuck” Coughlin, is a top advisor and the current campaign manager of Gov. Brewer.

State lobby reports show that Brewer’s current spokesman, Senseman, previously worked as CCA’s chief lobbyist in Arizona as an employee of Policy Development Group, another influential Phoenix consulting firm. His wife, Kathryn Senseman, is still employed by Policy Development Group and still lobbies the legislature on behalf of CCA.

In other words, in 2005 and 2006, as Arizona legislators—many of them ALEC members—were drafting provisions of what would eventually become the “Breathing While Brown” law, Brewer’s director of communications, Senseman, was lobbying them on behalf of CCA.

H/T to my friend Diane for alerting me to this companion to the recent In These Times article I posted. Anticipating the inevitable compassionate response of the nativist horde – So what? They’re illegal! They belong in jail! – I will make note of a couple of things:

1. Assuming SB1070 stands and results in mass arrests and incarcerations of immigrants in these private prisons, who is going to pay for that? I’ll give you one guess. Starts with T and ends in “payers”.

2. You want the undocumented immigrants to leave, right? So let’s think about this for a sec. Here’s an industry (private prisons) that stands to profit from a steady stream of “customers”. That industry has strong ties with the legislator who was the chief architect of SB1070 and the Governor who signed it. Do you honestly believe they have a true incentive to stop illegal immigration now? Where would the profit be in that?

Also from the article:

Brewer’s “chief policy advisor,” Richard Bark—a man Senseman and Pearce both say was directly involved in the drafting of S.B. 1070—remains listed with the Office of the Secretary of State as an active lobbyist for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI). CCA is a “board level” member of the ACCI and is the top employer in Pinal County, located just south of Maricopa County, where it operates five detention facilities for both state prisoners and immigrant detainees.

Would this be the same Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry that just endorsed Jan Brewer, along with a host of other pro-SB1070 candidates? Why, I believe it is.

Douglas sits on the Mexican border, about 50 miles west of New Mexico. Its economy struggled after the smelter closed in the late 1980s. City leaders had less revenue to work with.

Michael Ortega saw the potential to fill that void in 1994.

Ortega, who was Douglas’ public-works director at the time, said the relationship began with selling the program to residents who might have been concerned about inmates in orange jumpsuits doing maintenance at city parks and easing concerns of employees who feared the cheap labor pool would take their jobs.

“There were discussions amongst staff and employees, and we told them the reality is this: They’re not taking your job,” Ortega said. “They’re helping you accomplish your job so I don’t have to hire more staff, because I can’t afford it.”

Ponder that. When revenue to your municipality dries up because a plant closes, taking well-paying jobs with it, the obvious answer is to hire a bunch of people for 50 cents an hour. Boy, that’ll sure stimulate the economy and bring those tax revenues back!

It’s not there isn’t a lot to be said for job training programs for inmates. It’s important to teach skills to and instill self-confidence in offenders so they can be productive members of society when they get out. What makes me uneasy is when government and corporations view prisoners as a cheap, captive workforce. Highly educated and skilled workers won’t be threatened by a 50 cent an hour captive and mostly uneducated labor force but low skilled workers will. This includes, ironically, the very inmates who upon their release will find it difficult to secure even minimum wage employment. It does not portend a foreseeable end to the disastrous War on Drugs either.

As for immigration reform with a path to legalization? Fuhgeddaboudit if Pearce and his ilk have their way. Someone sent me a link to this In These Times article and it all clicked into place.

An In These Times investigation shows that the bill’s promoters are as equally dedicated to border politics as they are to promoting the fortunes of private prison companies, like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Geo Group, which stand to reap substantial profits as more undocumented residents end up in jail.

Are we surprised at all by this?

Okee dokee. Do you think the Buycott organizers took a gander at the list to see who was on it? I’m not just talking about “ClubJenna / Jenna Jameson (Adult Entertainment)” – which, admittedly, had me laughing for like two minutes straight. I’m talking about how many of the companies listed are hotels, restaurants, even food and produce companies.

In case pro-SB1070 readers who think this Buycott is a swell idea aren’t picking up what I’m putting down, I’ll put it simply: Who do you think HIRES a lot of the undocumented workers? Seriously, do the math, people. As yet, only one Arizona business, Republic Monetary has signed on as a supporter of the teabaggers Buycotters.

I wouldn’t expect too many businesses to show up at Tempe Diablo Stadium on Saturday night to hand out promotional schwag but who knows? “I went to the Buycott rally and all I got was this t-shirt that was sewn by undocumented workers!”

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that I’ll be on KJZZ tomorrow morning at 11am for a panel discussion about AZ politics.

From 1912 until 1997, general-fund expenditures grew from zero to $6.086 billion. Ten years later, they skyrocketed to $13.961 billion. The meteoric rise in Arizona expenditures under Gov. Janet Napolitano was especially onerous, with a $6 billion increase in just six short years.

What did we get with all of that “investment” in state government? A $900 million debt to Bank of America, a mortgaged state capital, a deficit of more than $2 billion, a loss of 300,000 private-sector jobs, an education system whose students are less prepared to enter the job market than at any time in our history, tens of thousands of home foreclosures, and an empty “rainy day” fund.

Verschoor is conflating government spending on the needs of citizens, which Republicans simply don’t believe in, with the current debt crisis the state is in. ‘Twas Janet “Spendy” Napolitano with her profligate ways who brought us these troubles, they say. I mean, did you see the way she ran up the debt while she was Governor?

Oh wait. Here’s the balance sheet from the last 10 years, straight from the JLBC. The arrows are helpfully provided by your Diva and note that FY2007 general fund expenditures were $10B, not $13B as Verschoor claims.

Spending did go up during Napolitano’s tenure but so did, what are those things called? Oh yeah, surpluses. And even in FY 2009 (last budget of Napolitano’s governorship), where the shortfall is projected to be $467 million, the spending was less than 2006 levels. The shortfall is the result of a poor economy and the structural deficit created by 20 years of ill-advised property, income, and corporate tax cuts. We have a revenue problem, not a spending one.

Verschoor and other conservatives don’t like government spending that helps people*. Period. We get it. But they ought to debate that view on its own merits and stop folding it into fiscal conservatism as if it is the same thing. And really, Thayer, you’ve got lot of nerve blaming the state of our schools on a former governor who wanted to invest more in them.

*Conservatives have no problem spending on stuff they like. You better believe that if Jan Brewer were running $13 billion budgets and most of the spending were going to private prisons and school vouchers, man, they’d be all over that action.

Governor Brewer signed a bill banning ethnic studies into law today.

That means you better not teach any classes that might “…advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.”

So don’t teach about Greek or Roman mythology, because the descendants of the Huns or the Sassanids might be offended.

Don’t teach about Christianity because, well, that could be an affront to a bunch of ethnic groups.

Can’t teach about Columbus, the Pilgrims, Manifest Destiny, the Trail of Tears, or the Civil War.

Or the Robber Barons.

Or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Or Cesar Chavez.

Or the Civil Rights Act.

Or Ayn Rand (she was mad at Russian Communists.)

Basically, we can’t teach Arizona students anything about any group of people, ever. It might lead to resentment. We are officially hooked on phonics. Because we don’t see color here. Except when we’re profiling for undocumented immigrants.