Posted by: Donna
For some reason it has escaped notice here in Arizona, but Governor Doug Ducey put his name on a letter from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), who chairs the Agriculture Subcommittee in Congress, about the supposed need to drug test SNAP recipients so as to break their “dependence on government”.
Dear Mr. Aderholt:
As you know, multiple states have recently enacted drug-testing provisions as part of the state-based requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP or food stamps. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service administers this program at the federal level, but disagrees with these drug-testing efforts.
We believe that Congress specifically gave states the flexibility to decide whether to implement this common-sense reform in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. This Act provides that “States shall not be prohibited by the Federal Government from testing welfare recipients for use of controlled substances nor from sanctioning welfare recipients who test positive for use of controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. § 862(b).
Since SNAP and other welfare programs typically have job training requirements as a core element, we write today to express our sincere confidence that drug testing recipients of SNAP benefits is not only lawful, but will aid in our ability to move individuals off of this welfare program and back into the workforce as productive members of their communities. After all, drug testing and potentially getting treatment to be drug free doesn’t make it harder to get assistance; it makes it easier to get a job. We look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Governor Scott Walker; et al.
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, this type of drug testing is needlessly humiliating and a complete waste of time and money.
According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.
Duh. Drugs are expensive, which is why if the Governor and other Arizona Republicans were really concerned about people misusing government subsidies to buy drugs they’d do well to look toward drug testing the affluent parents of K-12 students receiving tuition tax credits. I mean, shouldn’t we be thinking about the well-being of those children and of the productivity of their parents?
Posted by: Donna
*Apologies for the long absence as the Democratic Diva site was down. I had been posting regularly at Blog For Arizona in the meantime, so you can check out the posts there.
The competition for Worst GOP Arizona Legislator Ever is stiff these days, given Rep. David Gowan’s not-smart snit toward reporters having the temerity to *gasp* report on things he’s doing. That’s pretty bad but, purely on the basis of shocking callousness, I’m going to have to go with Senate President Andy Biggs (pictured), who is currently running for Congress, while refusing to consider a bill that would provide health care to 30,000 Arizona children from low income families.
EJ Montini finds it to be pretty appalling:
Since the beginning of the legislative session Senate President Andy Biggs — who won a $10 million Publishers Clearing House prize a few years back – has refused to give Arizona’s hard-luck poor kids the health care they deserve.
Biggs has not allowed the senate to vote on a proposal to restore health insurance coverage to children in low-income families.
Back in 1998 then-Gov. Jan Hull signed the KidsCare program into law. The money comes from the federal government. The legislature took Arizona out of the program in 2010.
Now Arizona has one of the highest rates of uninsured children in the country.
The idea behind House Bill 2309 is to restore that funding to Arizona’s version of the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
There are at least 30,000 good reasons to do to.
“I don’t support KidsCare,” said Biggs.
Wow, Biggs sure seems nice.
They say you should never read the comments, and that’s probably a good idea for your overall mental tranquility, but sometimes commenters (who are real people, sitting at their computers and typing their real thoughts into them) provide a useful glimpse into how certain people think. By which, I mean right wingers.
Here’s commenter “Luis Diehard Flores”, who poses in his profile picture with his wife and small children:
If democrats really cared about children they wouldnt be the biggest proponents of abortion.
Those of us who have paid careful attention to anti-choicers know that they are mainly driven by the desire to punish women for sex. But they’ve been given a free ride in the court of public opinion to pretend that it’s about “saving babies”, which enables them to cloak themselves in fake altruism as they cruelly oppose any help to poor people. They’re “pro-life”, which means exactly nothing having to do struggling people having decent lives and everything to do with making them as miserable as possible.
Posted by: Donna
I’m off to Nevada to volunteer for the Hillary Clinton campaign. See you all next week!
Posted by: Donna
It used to be, not long ago, that voters who never missed any election were known as “good citizens”. But as the country has become more polarized and increasingly ungovernable, thanks entirely to one party (the GOP) being overtaken completely by rabid reactionaries, there is an increasing tendency by the Serious People to blame the voters for what they sat back and allowed to happen for decades*. This has certainly been the strategy of the people behind the Open “Primary”** initiative (AKA Top Two) in Arizona, which is currently getting signatures for the 2016 ballot.
The Arizona Republic has relentlessly promoted Top Two for years now, running numerous favorable articles and editorials on it since the first version (which failed) was introduced in 2012. Last Saturday, there was this softball interview with former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, a main backer of the initiative.
Why did the Open and Honest Coalition form?
The existing system discriminates against the 1.2 million voters who choose to not affiliate with a party, the largest group in Arizona. All taxpayers pay for primary elections, but independents are barred as candidates from those ballots and forced to choose a party ballot which they have already chosen to reject. Arizona had a 30-year record-low voter turnout in 2014 because voters aren’t given the freedom of choice.
Over $15 million in “dark money” was spent in 2014, principally on negative campaigns, which also hurts voter turnout. We must require disclosure of dark money and change the architecture of Arizona’s election system.
There was no push-back on any of that, including Johnson’s claim that Arizona’s record low turnout was due to “lack of choice”. California has had “open” primaries for two elections now and, lo and behold, also a record low turnout in 2014!
But it was at the end of the brief and decidedly less-than-hard-hitting interview that Johnson really lets you know (emphasis mine) the contempt he has for the people who currently vote in primaries.
If we don’t reform our election system where are we headed?
The American experiment, as we know it, will end. Public confidence in our political system is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of massive amounts of undisclosed money being poured into the American political system. As people lose faith, more will register as independents. Candidates who scream the loudest and incite the angriest mob will be elected by fewer citizens. The result will be a loss of faith in the republic.
There is a certain amount of anger in the American electorate, but it is most assuredly not evenly distributed between the parties, as you can see here:
I can’t speak to the possibly elevated anger of Arizona Republicans since I’m a Democrat but I can say that the “angry mob” of Democratic voters in Arizona have a history of nominating mild-mannered and moderate candidates to important offices. In 2014, those included the notably non-rageaholic Fred DuVal, Terry Goddard, Felecia Rotellini, and David Garcia for the statewide offices in addition to several legislative candidates such as Rep. Eric Meyer, who are not renowned for screaming.
Of course, it’s not that anger is always wrong! Those of us outraged by the constant attacks on public education and other necessary government functions by the GOP majority in Arizona are right to be! If you are not outraged, as the saying goes, it is because you are not paying attention. But I doubt that the people who currently vote in primaries in Arizona are primarily motivated by anger and it is dishonest of Paul Johnson to characterize us as an “angry mob”.
There are arguments, of varying degrees of veracity and logic, in favor of the Top Two initiative. The one Johnson is making about it somehow attracting less “angry” voters who will restore “faith in the republic” has no evidence for it and is insulting as hell to people who regularly vote, as good citizens have done since the founding of our republic.
*Especially galling since one of the Top Two backers is none other than Chuck Coughlin, who ushered in the election of Jan Brewer and the rest of the GOP slate in 2010 on the back of the racist SB1070.
**”Open primary” is a misnomer, since the major change the initiative makes is to the general election, when the majority of voters show up, and they would be faced with a very diminished “choice” on their ballots.
In which I compliment Bernie Sanders for what some of his own supporters seem to think is bad for some reason
Posted by: Donna
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had turned in two solid election performances in the first two states of the Democratic Primary. He nearly won Iowa and went on the next week to win New Hampshire decisively. Rather than simply be happy about it, some Sanders supporters (egged on heavily by pundits who really want to keep a “horse race” going for ratings) have taken to taunting those of us who support Clinton with graphics of Sanders’ support with young people (especially women) in Iowa and New Hampshire.
One possible reason that young people (in states that have voted so far) might be flocking to Bernie that is not exciting, and isn’t about how young Dem primary voters mostly believe Hillary is an evil hellbitch sent from Goldman Sachs to turn them into catfood for vagina voting old hags, is that the Sanders platform includes a proposal for tuition-free public college for all. Which, leaving aside considerations of its feasibility in being passed and implemented, is a great idea! I think progressives/liberals across the board agree on that. But when I and others have raised that as a factor in Sanders’ youth support, some people have become strangely upset over it.
Consider the following scenario:
1. “People on the Left agree that free college is a worthy goal.”
2. “Both Clinton and Sanders have proposed free college, with Sanders’ plan going farther on that.”
3. “Maybe young voters prefer Sanders in part because of the free college promise.”
4. “What??!? Well, I never!! How DARE you accuse young people of supporting Sanders for “free stuff”, you monster!”
It’s bizarre, truly. I say it’s great what Sanders is doing, in making a point about how the government should actually be doing things to improve people’s lives, instead of collecting taxes from us and handing it over to the massive security state and other favored interests while services and infrastructure are starved! Hells yeah to free college! And all kinds of other “free stuff” too! Democrats are going to be accused of being the party of welfare and free stuff anyway so let’s start talking about all the “free stuff” we want to give people!
But instead, I see liberals who on one hand tout Sanders’ democratic socialist platform but on the other are acting like losing Best Supporting Actress nominees – It’s okay, it’s just an honor to be considered! – at the prospect of Democratic voters actually wanting what they are being promised! WTF? It seems to be both an indication of how effective the right wing bootstraps puritanical work-work-work-but-deny-yourself narrative is and also that some Sanders supporters assume everyone who isn’t voting for Clinton just purely hates her as much as they do and any “reasons” they offer are just for show.
Posted by: Donna
“Hey, Gratehouse, do you think this Victoria’s Secret catalog is sexist?“, he asked me.
It was twenty some odd years ago and this was in the break room at the torpedo maintenance facility where my interlocutor, Torpedoman’s Mate Third Class Lee, and I worked in Yokusuka, Japan. This was in the dark days before online ordering was the norm and most of the women at the torp shop subscribed to the eponymous catalog. Not because we were lingerie junkies, but because by that time Victoria’s Secret had become a purveyor of a wide range of stylish and affordable women’s clothing, from the famous undergarments to jeans and boots and coats. Basically if you wanted more options than what was on offer the Navy Exchange or at the expensive stores out in town, you ordered from VS.
Needless to say, the frequently arriving catalogs were quite popular with some of the guys in the shop, as they featured (then, as now) the top supermodels of the day in underwear and bathing suits. The guys would pass them around (often without asking permission) and remark loudly on the attributes of the women within. There was more than mere male appreciation of the (very conventionally) attractive female form going on. It was shit like “boy, my wife sure doesn’t look like this!” It was a lot of very loud and very pointed commentary directed at whatever women were within earshot, with the intention clearly to remind us that we mere mortal women had failed to be as boner-inducing as were the Victoria’s Secret goddesses. Not that any of those guys were hot shit themselves but they knew society didn’t demand the kind of physical perfection from them as it demanded from women and they were not going to let us forget it.
Generally we women tried to ignore or laugh off the jerkoff behavior of the guys but every so often the baiting would get to one of us. Well, by “us” I mean “me” mostly, since I was on my way to becoming fiercely feminist by that point. Yeah, sometimes I’d say something. And it usually didn’t go over well (duh) and I’d feel somewhat awkward objecting to their behavior in the first place (because wasn’t I kind of, you know, asking for it by getting that catalog?) but I’d say something anyway sometimes. Because fuck those guys. Then again, sometimes I did say something catty (bad feminist me!) about the “unnatural” thinness of the models, because I was in my twenties and wanted to feel that I was pretty too.
Of all the guys in the torp shop, TM3 Lee was the grossest and most obnoxious. He not only made it a point to announce, loudly, that he was about to go ogle the Victoria’s Secret catalog, but he usually did so on the way to the shitter (the literal name for the commode in the Navy, to you civilians). And that one day he emerged from the shitter with the catalog (that no one wanted to touch by then) and stuck it up to my face and demanded to know if I thought it was sexist. There were probably a thousand better answers for me to come up with than the one I did, which as “uh, yes?” but I was caught off guard by the question and (I guess) forgot briefly whom I was dealing with and answered it as if it were a legitimate question and not a “gotcha” one.
I remember that Lee smirked as he walked off, undoubtedly feeling very much the victor of the exchange, and that I felt like a schmuck. Because it wasn’t the Victoria’s Secret catalog itself was sexist, since I ordered a bunch of stuff from it, but rather that it did promote unrealistic images of women to both women and men.
For some reason I remembered that when I watched Gloria Steinem, the 81 year old feminist icon, give her now infamous and cringe-inducing answer to Bill Maher’s badgering question to her, of all people, for why young women prefer Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton. He was baiting her, and she took it, responding that maybe it was because they wanted to be “where the boys are”. (Facepalm!)
What Steinem should have told Maher was that he should ask young women directly about that, if he was really interested in the answer. But instead she treated it as a good faith question, though there was no reason to think that it was. Bill Maher is a sixty year old wealthy Hollywood “bachelor” and it is not difficult to think of reasons why he might feel that young women are the ones who matter most, despite Hillary Clinton winning decisively among other age groups. In case it’s not obvious, I’ll just recall that Maher recently complimented a female guest nearly a decade his junior that she was still “fuckable at 50″.
Maher has been on quite a tear of late about how Western feminists need to be doing more (god knows what that would be) to combat the treatment of women in strict Muslim cultures. Of course he brought that up to Steinem and she pushed back on it pretty well by reminding Maher that there are active feminist movements in those countries. Steinem also pointed out that young women in America are actively engaged in politics and feminism and that they are dealing with issues now (such as crushing student loan debt) that their feminist forebears didn’t have to.
But she did fuck up with that one answer, wherein she should have instead told possibly the smuggest talk show host in America to stop trying to pit older women against younger ones like a smug dick. Steinem apologized but people are still flipping out about it and acting like it somehow erases all the work she’s done for women’s rights for the past fifty years. Well, if that’s the case then I guess we better all give up on this feminism thing because the forces arrayed against us are never going to stop shoving what are essentially the rhetorical equivalents of TM3 Lee’s shit-encrusted lingerie catalogs into our faces to bait us into “admitting” that it’s all been a mistake. (And sometimes we’ll just say dumb things unprompted! I know I do.)
We feminists are sometimes going to suck at it, often and especially if we are older and white. If younger women are rejecting a Presidential candidate we consider to be a feminist icon (Clinton) then we should find out why from them and not draw our own possibly unfounded conclusions about it. And we need to recognize that some people in the media are trying diligently to draw us into an “old hags vs young bimbos” narrative and resist it.
Posted by: Donna
So I have no problem with this per se:
It’s perfectly their prerogative for several Democratic legislators, county supervisors, and council members to endorse the Presidential candidate of their choosing. It’s even alright for the three people who listed their positions in the state or county parties to do so. I’ve never believed anyone was required to refrain from making an endorsement as an individual. What I don’t care for is the double standard. Maricopa County Chair Steven Slugocki tells me that he has been given a very hard time for doing things like simply appearing in a photo with Hillary Clinton supporters or “liking” a positive Facebook post about the Democratic Presidential candidate. I have a strong feeling that the animosity toward Steve goes well beyond disapproval of the appearance of impartiality by a party official or policy differences between the two Democratic candidates. No, it’s looks more like white-hot hatred for Hillary and her supporters.
And again, while there’s nothing inherently wrong with a bunch of Bernie Sanders supporters in, ahem, prominent Democratic elected and party positions putting out a press release and holding a press conference to express their support for Senator Sanders, there is a certain inescapable irony in it. Does it neutralize your being part of the odious Democratic “establishment” when you are supporting the “anti-establishment” candidate? Is that how that works?