Google Search

Monday, December 23, 2013

Legislators need to finally step up, protect vulnerable Arizona children

(PNI) Regarding "CPS crisis deepens" (Republic, Friday):

I have lived in Phoenix since 1974, and nothing for the better has changed at Child Protective Services. While this angers me, it doesn't surprise me.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but, ultimately, it is time for the legislators of our state to get their stuff together and do something to fix this ongoing problem. The children in our state are depending on them to protect them.

So far, they have not done the job.

--Bruce J. Parkhouse, Phoenix

Where is CPS oversight group?

A photo with the article "CPS crisis deepens" on Friday shows at least nine members of an overstaffed oversight committee on Child Protective Services.

Oversight? Where have you been?

--J.B. Shevlin, Payson

New approach to CPS required

The children of Arizona deserve better. We must improve Child Protective Services.

That requires an independent agency, led by an exceptional, dedicated professional who will attend to the morale and resilience of the staff. This is the most emotionally demanding work imaginable: faced daily with life-and-death decisions, caught up in intense and sometimes frightening disputes, and double-bound by the state mandate for family preservation and the humane goal of child protection.

While working closely with police, it should not be a part of an already overstretched public-safety agency.

We need to recognize that there are not enough alternatives available, as foster services are insufficient to compensate for the number of family failures. Poverty is frequently a factor in family breakdown, and as income disparity increases, more and more families live with fewer resources.

We should look for leadership out of state.

--H.G. Whittington, Sun City West

Senate rule change is ill-advised

Regarding "Senate Dems limit GOP use of filibusters" (Republic, Friday):

Changing the Senate rules, which have existed nearly since the beginning of our nation, to remove the option of some filibusters is a radical step that shows the lengths President Barack Obama and the left will go to achieve their revolutionary agenda.

The rules protected the rights of minorities, a very central theme implicit in much of what our founders created. They wanted to ensure that elections could not create a tyranny of the majority, especially after what they experienced as British subjects. The Senate and its rules were a salient aspect of those protections.

President Obama and the Democrats used deceit on "Obamacare" and Benghazi, Libya, to pass the law and to steal an election. The electorate was fooled into believing, so the Democrats in power pushed their agenda. Now that the public sees through the lies and the administration has lost public support, it is abusing its power to change the rules, so it can continue to force upon Americans a revolution they do not want.

The radical left doesn't care that its policies don't work for America. The left, specifically in the persons of President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, will go to any lengths to win, to force their ideology and will upon all of us, no matter what we want.

--Dennis Santillo, Cornville

Rule for in-flight cellphone calls

Any change allowing cellphone calls in flight should be accompanied by isolated grouped seating, so that callers could be limited to annoying each other.

--Dale Woods, Prescott

Filibuster change is far overdue

The filibuster was part of the Senate rules back in the days of the new republic, when transportation was slow, to allow senators to delay a bill and let other senators of their party to arrive to vote. The filibuster has been used and abused by partisan politics by both parties to the detriment to the American people.

President George W. Bush and his Republican Senate were given the mandate by the electorate to govern. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate are given the mandate by the electorate to govern. The abuse of the filibuster has reduced and often stopped both administrations from their ability to govern this country.

We are the only democracy in the world that requires 60percent of a body to vote to pass appointments or legislation. All other democracies only need 51percent to do the same. This is not the will of the people. I, as well as many others, I'm sure, am sick and tired of the stagnation in Congress, and in their partisan refusal to do their job.

Thank God there is the courage to put the filibuster to rest, and when the Republican Party is in control of the presidency and the Senate, they need to keep it at rest so they may govern as the electorate intended.

--Richard Ward, Phoenix

Ariz. pension fund has no shame

Arizona's Public Safety Personnel Retirement System's board approved last week retroactive pay raises and an inflation adjustment for some investment-staff members.

Government entities are making large contributions, and retirees had their cost-of-living raises suspended. The fund has done very poorly for several years. On the other hand, even the Arizona State Retirement System, which pays its staff less, has done a much better job. How does this kind of thing keep going on? Have they no shame?

--Barb Montgomery, Phoenix

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Health law's troubles give Republicans boost

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON The health care law's problems are giving congressional Republicans a much-needed boost of energy, helping them to move past the government-shutdown debacle and focus on a theme for next year's congressional elections.

Republicans are back on offense, and more quickly than many had expected, after seeing their approval ratings plunge during last month's partial federal government shutdown and worrisome talk of a possible U.S. debt default.

They pillory administration officials at Capitol Hill hearings. They cite the millions of people getting dropped by insurers despite President Barack Obama's promise that it wouldn't happen. They harp on the program's flawed website enrollment process.

Now they're relishing Obama's apology to those who are losing health insurance plans he had repeatedly said they could keep.

"If the president is truly sorry for breaking his promises to the American people, he'll do more than just issue a halfhearted apology on TV," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

'This is going to be a big issue'

Republicans once pinned their health care criticisms largely on computer glitches in the application and enrollment process. Today, they're accusing Obama and congressional Democrats of much worse, including deceit and incompetence.

Conservative groups are pouring money into ad campaigns reminding voters that many Democrats had promised Americans they could keep their current insurance policies if they wanted. In particular, Republicans hope these efforts will help them with women, who tend to vote Democratic and often make health care decisions for their families.

In the 2014 elections, "this is going to be a big issue, and it's not going away," said Daniel Scarpinato of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Democrats who voted for Obamacare," he said, "are pretty desperately running around with their hair on fire, trying to distance themselves, which they're not going to be able to do."

The White House says canceled policies can be replaced with better coverage, sometimes at lower prices. What the administration doesn't emphasize is that better coverage often costs more, and those looking for new policies may not qualify for the tax subsidies available under the new law.

Activists feel 'spring in step'

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Republican Party's top Senate campaign group, acknowledged that the party took a hit last month when an angry public blamed them for the 16-day partial government shutdown.

But now, he said, "there's a spring in the step" of party activists.

Potential congressional candidates "who might have been 50-50 about running for office might be a little more inclined" to plunge in, he said.

Best of all, Dayspring said, the most vulnerable Democratic lawmakers have echoed Obama's now-disproven promises about insurance cancellations and "most of them are on film doing it."

Republicans must pick up six Senate seats next year to gain control for the first time in eight years. If they prevent Democrats from gaining 17 net House seats, they will sustain the Republican House majority they won in 2010.

Dayspring said the law's problems will help his party combat Democrats' claim that Republicans are engaged in a "war on women" on matters such as access to contraceptives.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Saturday, December 21, 2013

It's clear immigration laws aren't working

If you've ever discussed immigration reform with a friend, neighbor, relative or co-worker, you've probably heard someone say we should just enforce the laws we already have on the books. It's the same line we hear about preventing gun violence, cleaning up our environment, keeping workers safe on the job and preventing workplace discrimination.

The thing is, it's not true.

Our current laws created the mess we have now.

Our problem isn't that we're not enforcing our laws; it's that our laws are out of date and often impractical or unenforceable. It's comforting to believe we could solve everything by hiring more law-enforcement agents, but that would barely scratch the surface.

If you believe immigration reform boils down to an enforcement question, consider the likely results of a nationwide crackdown. If we deported every one of the estimated 11million undocumented immigrants in this country, it would wreak havoc on the legal economy -- the loss of customers and the families suddenly without breadwinners would be just the start. No increase in Border Patrol spending will change that.

Besides, we've thrown money at the problem before and it hasn't made a difference. Border Patrol enforcement costs keep going up, but the agency's reported number of annual apprehensions has been decreasing steadily for years. The cost to taxpayers per apprehension has skyrocketed from $238 in 1990 to $10,431 in 2011, according to Business Insider. Are we happier with the results?

Undocumented immigration to the United States has slowed more or less to zero. The major policy question we're facing today isn't how to stop more immigration; it's how best to respond to the presence of the millions of people already here.

The solution is to create a reasonable earned-pathway system for undocumented workers to come into compliance and start to work legally in this country. Spending billions of dollars on get-tough fantasies is not going to happen, and it would be a disaster if it ever did.

Just as importantly, the "enforce the laws we have" rallying cry ignores huge opportunities that we as a country should be taking advantage of. The Senate reform bill passed earlier this year increases the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers by 3,500 over the next four years, which the University of Southern California found would create more than 115,000 new jobs and add $7billion to the U.S. economy annually. That's a big improvement that needs to be made today.

Unfortunately, prominent figures such as House Speaker John Boehner and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have decided that running out the clock on immigration reform is better for the Republican Party than addressing our country's needs.

As Perry said at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Arizona last month, "I think immigration reform is going to be very passé." Boehner said Nov.13 that on his watch, the House won't negotiate at all with the Senate on the issue.

That's not a political gamble. It's a total failure of leadership.

No one thinks our system works well right now. Even if you disagree with the efforts of comprehensive-reform advocates, you probably don't think we're living in the best of all possible worlds today. The status quo has no serious defenders, but it's exactly what Boehner, Perry and their friends are keeping in place.

Everyone should be able to agree that they want a better immigration system than the one we have now.

We can disagree about what that would look like, but it's important to move past the "enforce the laws we have" talking point.

It keeps us from having the serious conversation we need to have about what to change and how.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democrat, represents Arizona's 3rd Congressional District.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Friday, December 20, 2013

<nbsp/> Cooperation can help get things done

On the morning of Dec. 8, 1984, Arizona native John R. Norton III entered the West Wing of the White House and was greeted by Robert "Bob" Tuttle, President Ronald Reagan's director of personnel. Reagan had asked the Arizona agribusiness titan to serve as deputy secretary of Agriculture.

Norton III, a Republican, accepted the president's offer, and his name was placed before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. The Senate, at the time, was controlled by

the Democrats, and Norton III expressed trepidation about his potential "grilling."

Significantly, Arizona's entire congressional delegation rallied around its native son. Junior Sen. Dennis DeConcini, a Democrat, hosted a reception at his McLean, Va., home, where he introduced Norton III and his wife, Doris, to Democratic senators on the committee. DeConcini's wife's family, the Hurleys, were long acquainted with the Nortons through their family enterprises and their political affiliation with Arizona's growing and increasingly influential Republican Party. Of course, senior Sen. Barry Goldwater supported Norton III's confirmation.

From the House of Representatives, Arizona's delegation -- Morris Udall, a Democrat, and Republicans John McCain, Eldon Rudd and Jim Kolbe -- prepared statements in Norton III's behalf.

Udall, in characteristic fashion, offered an amusing comment but left no doubt about his support for his fellow Arizonan: "John is an unusually well-qualified person, and he is superior to everyone I know. I do not know why anyone in his right mind would want to take on this job, but the country is lucky that he is, and you will make no mistake if you confirm his nomination."

That snapshot in my new book, "The Norton Trilogy," represents another Arizona and another time, when the public's interest and civility were part and parcel of the political process.

Though contrasting ideologies and partisanship existed in the 1980s, the political atmosphere was less toxic. Differences were noted, respected, and after 5 p.m., ideological fealty remained at work. Congressmen and senators from differing parties socialized and dined together. The bipartisanship exemplified in Norton III's successful nomination in 1985 has receded into history.

Two political giants who respected each other and their respective pioneer families, Democrat Carl Hayden and Goldwater, set the tone for the bipartisan support reflected in Norton III's confirmation hearings. Shortly before his retirement from the Senate, Goldwater spoke of Hayden.

"Let me put it this simple way," he stated flatly, "whenever my service in the Senate is terminated, I hope that my service to the country and my state equals a small fraction of what Carl Hayden has provided in both areas," adding, "Carl Hayden outgrew party personality early in his political career."

Though bipartisanship is one of several themes that runs through "The Norton Trilogy," the book is also a study of the roles that federal reclamation, law, politics and individual initiative played in the settlement and growth of this often unforgiving region of the country. In short, this volume is a rumination on the history of water and agribusiness in the American Southwest through the lives

of three generations of John R. Nortons.

The work details the earliest efforts at irrigated agriculture in the 19th century through the monumental Arizona vs. California Supreme Court case that helped determine where the life-giving waters of the Colorado River would be divided and into the critical events that have shaped the late 20th century and early 21st. The Nortons were at the center of these and other developments that made Arizona into a vital population and agricultural center.

Pioneers such as John R. Norton (1854-1923), who was one of three members of the legendary Breakenridge Survey of 1889 that located the site of what became Roosevelt Dam, and John R. Norton Jr. (1901-87), who, by the 1930s emerged as one of Arizona's leading agriculture producers and livestock growers, shaped the very landscape of the western United States.

And John R. Norton III built upon the accomplishments of his father and grandfather to become one of the region's major agribusiness entrepreneurs, deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture in the Reagan administration, and one of the West's leading philanthropists in education, health care and the arts.

The Nortons, moreover, reflected the region's evolution in politics from the late 19th century to the early 21st. Norton Sr., a Kentucky native who moved West, was a southern Democrat who won election to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and sought to rival Hayden in turn-of-the-century Democratic Party caucuses.

Norton Jr., not as politically active as father or son, nevertheless expressed his "Pinto Democrat" leanings when he chaired the "Democrats for Wilkie" effort in the 1940 presidential election. He was well on his way to Republican registration.

And Norton III, perhaps the most active and astute of the three in political affairs, continues to champion conservative causes.

As former Sen. DeConcini stated recently, "The Norton family reaches back in the history of Arizona as far as the Udalls, Goldwaters, Babbitts and DeConcinis, and this family and its accomplishments serve as an historical metaphor for the growth and development of Arizona and the Greater Southwest for the past 150 years."

Bruce Babbitt, former Arizona governor and secretary of the Interior Department, added a more personal observation: "During my years as governor, John R. Norton III was my go-to Republican. Working together, we discovered a lot of common ground for making water policy and promoting agriculture. The remarkable history of three Norton generations should help us understand and renew bipartisan cooperation."

Beyond the Nortons serving as exemplars of a more civil and dignified political culture, former Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, who penned a robust foreword to "The Norton Trilogy," correctly asserts that "the Nortons have made Arizona and the nation a better place," and their intergenerational legacy "is as much an American story as it is an Arizona one."

In contrast to current political vitriol and divisiveness, Arizona residents can look back upon a long history of political evolution and change, vigorous and productive political debate, and, in several significant instances, bipartisan cooperation and support from its political leaders.

Reaching across the aisle to find common ground has been a part of Arizona's political history, and, in the best of all worlds, its future.

Jack August Jr. is a visiting scholar in legal history at Snell & Wilmer. His new book, "The Norton Trilogy," is the latest of several books he has written about the American West.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Thursday, December 19, 2013

GOP's Pullen running for treasurer

Randy Pullen, former head of the state Republican Party, announced his candidacy Thursday for the GOP nomination for state treasurer.

Pullen is touting his financial credentials, in both private and political circles, as he wades into what is now a four-candidate field for the August 2014 Republican primary.

He is a certified public accountant and served as treasurer of the Republican National Committee from 2009-11.

Pullen also has a background in data systems for financial institutions. He oversaw the installation of the state's financial-information system three decades ago when he worked for Deloitte Touche. With that ailing system slated for replacement in 2015, he said, he's well-positioned to reprise that oversight role. "If they're going to change out the accounting system in 2015, who better to oversee it?" he asked.

Pullen said he has spent months building a statewide team, talking up his trio of campaign chairmen: former Gov. Fife Symington, Mohave County Supervisor Buster Johnson and Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll.

Also running in the Republican primary for the treasurer's seat are Jeff DeWit, president and CEO of echotrade, a day-trading investment company; former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman; and former Chandler City Councilman Martin Sepulveda.

Current Treasurer Doug Ducey is seeking the GOP nomination for governor in 2014.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

GOP governors talk immigration reform

Republican governors who gathered in Phoenix last week for their annual conference did their best to distance themselves from their congressional GOP counterparts and Capitol Hill political dysfunction.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie cited immigration reform as an example of Washington's failure to deal with major issues.

Speaking Thursday at a news conference at the Republican Governors Association meeting at the Phoenician resort, Christie said the broken U.S. immigration system "has an effect on the people of our states, on the economies of our states" and needs a solution.

Christie declined to endorse specifics of a legislative remedy, such as a pathway to citizenship for most of the estimated 11million undocumented immigrants who have settled in the United States. He said it is up to President Barack Obama and Congress to figure out a compromise, just as he has to do in dealing with the Democrat-controlled New Jersey Legislature.

"The inaction down there on this problem, a problem that we've all seen for years, is just unacceptable," Christie said. "They've got work to do. Get to work and start to fix the problems."

Christie, who earlier this month won a second term in his traditional blue state, is a top GOP presidential prospect for 2016. He was the focus of most of the media attention at the four-day RGA conference, which also included a surprise Thursday appearance by former President George W. Bush at a private governors lunch. Also on Thursday, Christie became RGA chairman for the 2014 election year, a role that will give him additional national exposure.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, whose parents came from India, shared Christie's sense of urgency about the immigration situation. The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate this year passed a comprehensive bipartisan reform package, but it was declared dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Though House Republicans have talked for months about acting on a series of smaller immigration-related bills, none has come to the floor this year.

"At some point, D.C. needs to actually do something, say something," said Haley, who also did not offer an opinion on details such as a path to citizenship. "It is causing a divide across this country, the longer they put off making a decision."

Others at the Phoenix gathering offered varying views on immigration reform.

Some, such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, advocated for securing the border first, which for years has been a common Republican refrain.

"You could do a 21st-century, modern, guest-worker program without amnesty and solve the problem going forward for this country," added Pence, a former U.S. representative.

Perry, who unsuccessfully sought the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, predicted that the immigration-reform discussion will eventually resolve itself due to energy-policy reforms that he suggests will reinvent Mexico's economy. Mexicans now living without authorization in the United States will go home to better jobs, he said.

"Listen, I think the issue is you secure the border first and then you can have the conversation about immigration reform," Perry said Wednesday. "And, again, I think immigration reform is going to be very passé. It's going to be part of the past."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another possible 2016 candidate, complained that Republicans in Washington, D.C., too often are "defined as the party of 'no'" and called for the GOP to do a better job "offering detailed, principled solutions to the issues the American people care about."

When asked if the House Republicans missed an opportunity to offer a GOP immigration solution, Jindal said he won't participate in what he deemed "Republican fratricide." But he said "plenty of Republicans in D.C." are frustrated and agree they should be doing more on immigration and other big issues.

"You can get all sorts of Republicans to criticize other Republicans. I'm not interested in that," Jindal said. "I am interested in saying, and I do think, that absolutely, as the Republican Party, we need to be advancing solutions."

Christie and Haley both indicated that they would not hesitate to criticize Capitol Hill Republicans if criticism is merited.

"I think there are no saints in Washington right now," Haley said. "Republicans and Democrats have royally screwed this up."

For that reason, Haley said the next Republican presidential standard-bearer should come from the ranks of the governors, not Congress.

"What I always think is important are results, and it's really hard for somebody out of D.C. to prove results when they can't even stay open," she said, in an apparent reference to the recent partial federal government shutdown.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another potential White House contender, also said the GOP's strength lies with the governors.

"You know, it's pretty interesting, isn't it, that people talk about the Republican brand and what people tend to forget is we've got 30 Republican governors," Kasich said Wednesday. "There's not a better way to figure out who people favor than to look inside the states."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who also is widely viewed as a possible 2016 GOP hopeful, did not attend the conference.

Nowicki is The Republic's national political reporter.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Gay-rights advocates woo Flake, McCain

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain could be key in determining the fate of a bill that would ban employment discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender workers.

The Arizona Republicans are among six GOP senators being lobbied heavily by supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill's supporters appear to be close to securing the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. A vote to proceed to debate on the bill is scheduled for tonight, potentially setting up a vote to approve it later in the week.

On Thursday, Arizona volunteers delivered more than 3,200 postcards and letters to McCain's and Flake's Phoenix offices urging the senators to vote for the proposed law. Supporters said they also have made more than 1,100 phone calls to the senators. Their efforts will continue until the vote.

"Our goal is to really show that the support is there for this issue among Senator McCain's and Senator Flake's constituents," said Dan Rafter of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

The bill would bar employers from using a person's sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for hiring, firing, promotion or salary decisions.

Flake supported a narrower version of the bill in 2007 when he was serving in the House. That bill did not include transgender workers. It passed the House 235-184 in 2007 but died in the Senate.

This time, Flake said he will oppose the legislation.

"Unlike a 2007 version of this bill, which I supported, the Senate bill includes new provisions that will increase the potential for litigation and compliance costs, especially for small businesses," Flake said in a written statement. "For that reason, I oppose the Senate bill."

McCain has not yet decided how to vote, although an aide says he's leaning toward opposing the bill unless it is amended. The aide said McCain worries that the bill could lead to "lawsuit abuse by trial lawyers" and whether it adequately exempts religious schools and charities from having to hire gay employees if doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs.

A September poll by Republican pollster Alan Lundry indicated about 63 percent of Arizonans support the proposed law.

"One thing we've found in conversations is that Arizonans see this as sort of a matter of the golden rule -- treating others as you would want to be treated," Rafter said. "No one would want to lose a job because of who they are."

To tap into that sentiment, the bipartisan Americans for Workplace Opportunity coalition sent three full-time field organizers to Arizona to lead the postcard-writing effort and organize phone banks to lobby Flake and McCain. The field workers have been in the state since August, shortly after the measure was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Arizona is one of seven states where the coalition has focused its efforts.

The challenge for the bill's supporters is that the Republican senators they are hoping to attract may worry about a challenge from the right in a GOP primary if they vote for the bill, said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California.

"There are social conservatives in the Republican Party who would oppose just about any gay-rights legislation, so there is a political cost," Pitney said. "On the other hand, non-discrimination laws do not generate as much opposition as same-sex marriage bills. There are conservative Republicans, both in the electorate and among politicians, who don't support gay marriage but do support non-discrimination. They are very different issues."

Pitney said Republicans who oppose the law risk losing the support of younger voters.

"Younger people -- even those who are conservative -- are much more likely to embrace gay rights than older people, particularly on the issue of non-discrimination," he said. "And as societal attitudes continue to change on the issue, Republicans could risk alienating voters in the general election if they oppose this law."

The Senate's 53 Democrats and two independents -- led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- have all come out in favor of the bill.

Two Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- also support the legislation. But two Republicans who voted for it in committee -- Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- have indicated that their support is now uncertain.

That leaves advocates for the law about three votes shy of the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

If it passes the Democrat-led Senate, though, the legislation would face steep odds in the Republican-controlled House.

In addition to Flake and McCain, the Republican senators the Human Rights Campaign and its allies have focused on are: Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Opponents of the bill say they also have been in touch with Flake,McCain and other key senators to try to convince them that the proposed law would hurt businesses and infringe on religious liberty.

"Business will be hit with more litigation costs if this bill passes," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for public-policy research at the conservative Family Research Council, which opposes gay rights and abortion rights. "When you add a new protected category to the law, you are giving a license to sue to a whole group of people who didn't have it previously."

But advocates of the bill say there has been no significant increase in litigation in states that have passed anti-discrimination laws. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has adopted a "neutral" position on the legislation.

The Human Rights Campaign cites a 2013 report by the Government Accountability Office that showed "relatively few" employment-discrimination cases in the 21 states that have laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On average, claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity were about 3 to 4 percent of the total number of employment-discrimination claims, the report said.

The Family Research Council doesn't believe that gays need to be protected from discrimination the way that racial minorities or women do, Sprigg said. "Most employers don't discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation because they have no way of knowing their orientation unless they declare it," he said. "It's an invisible characteristic; it's not like race or gender. For the vast majority of employers, they are not going to consider sexual orientation a relevant factor."

Those that do consider it relevant -- such as churches, Christian bookstores and other groups and businesses with religious affiliations -- should not be forced to hire gays, Sprigg said.

"While there is a religious exemption of sorts in this bill, we are not convinced that any exemption could be written in such a way that protects the rights of those who disapprove of homosexual conduct," he said.

But the bill's authors say they provide a broad exemption for religious organizations.

Any religious entity that is currently exempt from the employment-discrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also be exempt under the proposed law, the bill's supporters say.

"Americans understand that it's time to make sure our LGBT friends and family are treated fairly and have the same opportunities," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,who is the bill's lead sponsor. "Now it's time for our laws to catch up. People should be judged at work on their ability to do the job, period."

Rafter said supporters of the bill believe a victory in the Senate could lead to action in the House. "The House is a little tougher, but we do see momentum there," he said.

In just the last few days, Rafter said, Republican Reps. Jon Runyan of New Jersey and Chris Gibson of New York joined three other Republican co-sponsors of the House bill.

Sprigg said he has heard that House Democrats may try to force a vote on the bill using a procedural tool called a discharge petition. If they can get 218 signatures -- which would require support from 18 Republicans -- they can bring the legislation to the House floor for a vote.

"If it does come out of the Senate, that will put more pressure on the House," Sprigg said. "We can't be 100 percent sure what's going to happen there."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Monday, December 16, 2013

Farm bill offers test for D.C.'s politics, according to Vilsack

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Stalled negotiations over a farm bill threaten more than trouble for farmers and consumers, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says.

They're also a broader test of whether Washington can work.

The huge bill, which is more than a year overdue, is caught in a huge dispute between the House and Senate over how much to cut the food stamp program, among other issues.

Vilsack notes that failure to pass it before the end of the year could double milk prices for Americans, spark retaliatory tariffs from Brazil and leave livestock producers who have been hit by storms and drought without standard federal assistance.

Vilsack characterized the talks as a case study of an embattled government.

"This is a bill that should reignite what little DNA is left of bipartisanship in Washington, D.C.," he says.

"This has been a bill that's always been relatively easy for Congress to get done, and if we don't get it done, I think it sends another negative message to the country about the workings of government."

He sees passage starting momentum

On the other hand, passing the farm bill could be a tonic for what ails the capital, he argues, likening it to a stumbling football team that decides to change it's strategy and get back to basics.

"We (should) get back to blocking and tackling -- pass a bill, a major bill," he says. "When that happens, basically, relationships are formed, opportunities for success are created and I think it creates a momentum" that could boost prospects in Washington for a budget agreement and even immigration legislation.

He says "folks have been stuck" in House-Senate negotiations that missed a self-imposed deadline last week to agree on a framework so a bill could be passed before the end of the year.

He says Iowa would back Clinton in 2016

Vilsack, 62, a former two-term governor of Iowa, predicts Hillary Rodham Clinton would fare better in the Hawkeye State in 2016 than she did in 2008, when Barack Obama defeated her in the opening presidential caucuses.

"Let me just say that, from my perspective, Secretary Clinton didn't lose the Iowa caucus; the president won the Iowa caucus," says Vilsack, who supported Clinton. "His team did an enormous job of attracting new people to the system."

If Clinton decides to run again, "I'm reasonably confident that she'll receive a very good reception in Iowa," he says.

He is less certain that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would be at all welcome in the state's Republican caucuses, which were won in 2012 by Rick Santorum.

If Christie runs, he'll need to take a page from Obama's book, Vilsack says.

"He's going to have to look at ways in which he can expand the base of caucusgoers, because it is a very conservative Republican Party right now."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Sunday, December 15, 2013

He saw Ariz. schools undivided by racial prejudice of the time

e was an enlightened man in Arizona's dark ages.

Because Arizonans have faced tough obstacles for a long time, it's worth remembering our history of conquering problems. One man faced issues years ago and stood up for his beliefs.

Joseph H. Kibbey came to the Salt River Valley from Indiana, when Phoenix was still a remote settlement of dirt roads and deep ruts and the powerful musk of livestock reminded everyone this was very much a cow town.

The young lawyer had come to Territorial Arizona, specifically to Florence, to be a legal adviser to an irrigation firm, historian Jay J. Wagoner recounts. But very soon after, he would climb his career ladder to Arizona's highest rung.

If there was work of great import, Kibbey was the man to do it. He served as city attorney of Phoenix, territorial attorney general, territorial governor and county and state chairman of the Republican Party.

He is best known for so skillfully crafting Articles of Incorporation for the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association that they became a model of organization for many of America's later reclamation projects, according to the Salt River Project's history "The Taming of the Salt."

But his most extraordinary act was one of defiance: a defense of the public-school system and the few Black children it served.

The Arizona Territory in 1909 was very much a creature of its time, both reflexively and institutionally intolerant.

The Territorial Legislature passed a measure that year giving school districts the option to segregate their Black students from students of other races. The popular will was being expressed, and Kibbey, then territorial governor, would have none of it.

It is one thing to stand against racism in an enlightened age when there is broad agreement that such laws are despicable. It is radicalism to do it when virtually all of polite society, all of government, all of your friends and neighbors stand against you.

To his eternal credit, none of that deterred Gov. Kibbey. He leaned into those headwinds and eagerly vetoed the bill, historian Brad Luckingham writes.

"It would be unfair that pupils of the African race should be given accommodations and facilities for a common school education, less effective, less complete, less convenient or less pleasant … than those accorded pupils of the White race," Kibbey wrote.

Unmoved, the Territorial Legislature promptly overrode Kibbey's veto.

A year later, the Phoenix School Board began to segregate its schools.

Kibbey by then was no longer governor and back in private practice. Phoenix Blacks hired him to seek an injunction against the school board. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of Black leader Samuel F. Bayless to address the hardship created:

"Bayless had two daughters, six and 10 years old, who prior to segregation had walked five blocks to school. After Douglass School (for Blacks) opened, the girls were forced to walk two miles and to cross the tracks of both the Southern Pacific and the SFP&P, an act that imperiled life and limb," Luckingham writes.

The courts ultimately ruled against Kibbey and his Black clients. It would take another generation to right this wrong. Another generation before history's gavel would fall.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here