This week at 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. Here is the April 8 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents.
|
At Blue Virginia, lowkell writes—More Q-Poll Results: Virginians Strongly Support Progressive Policies on Issue After Issue:
- For anyone who tries to claim that progressive policies aren’t also majority – and by definition centrist/mainstream – policies, check out these Q-poll results for Virginia.
- “Virginia voters support 94 – 5 percent, including 90 – 8 percent among Republicans, background checks for all gun buyers.”
- By a 62%-32% margin, Virginians support limiting people to one handgun per month.
- “If more people carried guns, Virginia would be less safe, 53 percent of voters say, while 35 percent say it would be safer.”
- “Virginia voters support 59 – 35 percent allowing adults to legally possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use.”
- “By an overwhelming 92 – 6 percent, voters support allowing adults to use marijuana for medical use if a doctor prescribes it.”
- “Virginia voters also say 59 – 30 percent that increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid coverage is a ‘good idea.'”
- Quinnipiac didn’t poll on other issues, like support for clean energy or LGBT equality or a woman’s right to choose, but previous polls have found support for those as well.
Given that General Assembly Republicans are almost universally in the minority on all these issues, and given that they control the General Assembly, it’s perhaps no wonder that only 38% of Virginians approve “of the way the state legislature is handling its job.” Now, the key is to translate this sentiment into votes this November, specifically votes FOR progressive/Democratic candidates and against right wingnuts/Republicans.
At Left in Alabama, countrycat writes—SB123 – Another Attempt To Defund Public Schools & Decrease Accountability
Alabama Senate Majority Leader (& next in line for Governor) Del Marsh is still after public school money. Just 4 years after forcing through the so-called “Alabama Accountability Act” (aka the Great Private School Giveaway) under dubious circumstances, he’s back this session with an “update” to the bill.
In keeping with the doublespeak that’s par for the course in the Legislature, SB123 would actually decrease accountability and is a huge tax windfall for big donors to “scholarship granting organizations.”
- Increases the maximum allowable tax credit for a married couple, filing jointly from $50,000 to $100,000.
- The credit amount claimed rises from 50% of total tax liability to 75%.
- Scholarship granting organizations will only be audited every 3 years instead of annually.
The bill passed the Senate on February 23 (see the Roll Call vote) and is ready to go to the floor in the House. The vote could happen as early as tomorrow (4/13/17). Find your House Representative here and contact him/her immediately. You can reach the State House switchboard at 334-242-7686.
At Plunderbund of Ohio, William Phillis writes—Ohio Legislators Take Notice: Texas Lawmakers Ditched Voucher Bill:
As the almost-universal voucher bill (SB 85) is pending, Ohio legislators should take notice that Texas lawmakers supported an amendment to their budget expressly stating that state money, “may not be used to pay for or support a school voucher, education savings account or tax credit scholarship program or similar program through which a child may use state money for non-public education” by a 103-44 vote.
But even after that resounding defeat, some Texas lawmakers proposed a voucher program for poor families. It was defeated by a 117-27 margin. It appears Texas lawmakers understand that universal “voucherism” is initiated by “using” the poor to get a foot in the door. A quarter century ago, Ohio “used” the poor kids of Cleveland to get the Ohio voucher bandwagon started.
Ohio lawmakers have a constitutional duty to perfect a thorough and efficient system of common schools. That defined duty precludes any further consideration of SB 85.
At Blue NC, scharrison writes—Duke University rethinking construction of natural gas facility:
Taking a step back to evaluate their options:
For a university that has always been protective of its global reputation, contributing to global greenhouse gases through a natural gas plant is no way to burnish that image. That’s one of the conclusions of a Duke University Campus Sustainability Subcommittee, which released a report on a proposed combined heat-and- power natural gas plant today. [...]
It's good they're taking a long, hard look at this project. I was going to say, "It's about time," but I don't want to look a gift academic horse in the mouth. But timeliness aside, there was one particular point I was looking for in the Subcommittee's report, and I found it:
Specifically with respect to the calculation of the CHP plant’s effect on the University’s baseline emissions, a subset of subcommittee members met to consider whether the original emission reductions identified in the University’s calculations were overstated because they did not account for the University’s “ownership” of the electricity generation plus did not account for methane/natural gas leakage associated with the extraction and transport of the gas.
When presented with the emission calculation group’s perspective, the subcommittee agreed to make the recommended changes to the emissions methodology, and recommend to the Campus Sustainability Committee to adopt those changes. By including those revisions, the subcommittee determined that the CHP plant, as proposed and assuming that it would be powered only by conventional, fossil-derived natural gas, would reduce the University’s greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 10,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (~3% of campus emissions), as opposed to the 47,000-ton reduction claimed using the original methodology employed in the University’s Climate Action Plan. [...]
The fugitive emissions of methane during fracking and transportation are horrific, and methane is much worse for global warming than carbon dioxide. Emitted methane actually decays into carbon dioxide after 15-20 years but, before it does, it has approximately 86 times more "warming" potential than CO2.
But for those Board members who look at balance sheets more often than scientific data, and who might feel beholden to Duke Energy for providing such a tasty and efficient project, they need to remember this: Duke Energy has invested heavily in natural gas infrastructure in the last few years, and ensuring a reliable gas customer in Duke University for decades is pretty much all they're concerned about. The University's carbon (or methane) footprint, its reputation, its leadership position on Climate Change? None of that matters to the utility.
At Bleeding Heartland of Iowa, desmoinesdem writes—Journalists, stop validating Republican spin on voter ID:
Later today, Iowa Senate Republicans will give final approval to a bill that could prevent thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots. A broad coalition of groups oppose House File 516, because common sense and research on similar laws in other states overwhelmingly point to one conclusion: voter ID and signature verification requirements will create barriers to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, disproportionately affecting students, the poor, the elderly, and people of color.
Republicans don’t acknowledge any of the expert testimony. They pay no attention to the conservative judge who regrets his ruling on Indiana’s voter ID law, having concluded that such laws are “a means of voter suppression.” They keep insisting their so-called “election integrity” bill won’t block a single citizen from voting.
They offer up false equivalencies, saying in their newsletters and on the Senate floor that Iowa Democrats also passed a voter ID law when they controlled both legislative chambers.
These tactics can be effective because most news reports on contentious issues give equal weight to both sides, even if one side is not credible. The “he said/she said” frame with no effort to evaluate competing claims is one of my major journalism pet peeves.
But I realized last Friday that when a politician stretches the truth, a reporter’s incompetent fact-check is worse than no fact-checking at all.
At Bluestem Prairie of Minnesota, Sally Jo Sorensen writes—Collin Peterson’s town hall is Minnesota Nice:
While congressional town hall meetings elsewhere in the country--even just across the Red River in South Fargo--have been rowdy, Collin Peterson's first town hall since 2009 was as mild as Norwegian-American chili, The Fargo Forum reports in Constituents talk Medicare for all at town hall with Congressman Peterson:
A calm, collected line formed in the middle of the room as people waited to propose their solutions or express concerns, with many comments receiving applause. There was little to no negativity presented by Peterson or the crowd.
About half of the room raised their hands when Peterson asked for a show of hands how many were on Medicare.
"I'm on Medicare. It works," Peterson said.
Several people suggested the most "magical" health care solution of them all: Medicare for all.
This seems to be the template for Peterson's town hall meetings. Back in 2009, Bob Von Sternberg reported in A kinder, gentler town hall meeting at the Star Tribune. [...]
Bluestem has no explanation for this, other than the tendency of prairie people to present an affect as flat as our landscapes.
At Blue Jersey, Bill Irwin writes—Fighting for the Future of Democracy and the Democratic Party: Nearly 100 Progressives Dems File Petitions in June 6 Middlesex County Primary:
I am honored to be among the candidates who have filed petitions for every level of office in the upcoming Democratic Primary across Middlesex County. Many of us who have worked together locally, especially in Piscataway, began talking about how we could best stand up for democracy and our collective future under a Trump Administration. We listened to what the leaders of the Democratic Party said, and didn’t say, in the days after the election.
One candidate directly called on Progressive Democrats to run for local office to make the party more responsive to the needs of working families, students and seniors, and to make our Party belong to all of us, and not just to millionaires and billionaires. We heeded the advice of Sen. Bernie Sanders, and began organizing folks to run for County Committee. The response was overwhelming; each meeting required a larger meeting space than the one before it. A dozen people became an organization, and, in short order, connected with other progressive organizations; we have become a movement.
People who have never run for office, or been involved in politics before, have come out to stand up for their principles. In our area, and especially in the Piscataway community in which I have been honored to serve as the President of the Board of Education, our neighbors are looking for leaders who will stand up for working people and fight for our democracy.
Our local party has failed to show up in this critical time for our country and community. They have done virtually nothing to fight the Trump agenda. [...]
They are silent when the situation demands they be vocal. There are great examples from a few communities in Middlesex County, and around our state, of local elected officials showing up at Resistance rallies and Town Halls, and encouraging the Democratic Party members and allies to do the same. But not around here…
At Montana Cowgirl, Montana Cowboy writes—Gianforte and Crony Knudsen say No to Mail Ballots:
New Jersey multimillionaire Greg Gianforte joined the Republican legislative leadership, poorly led by Austin Knudsen, in refusing to support efforts to make it easier for Montanans to vote.
Just one day after Montanan Rob Quist called on Gianforte to join him in asking the legislature to approve mail ballots for May’s special congressional election – a bipartisan proposal to save counties money and encourage voter participation – Gianforte refused to lend his support. Instead, Gianforte had his spokesperson say it is a “decision that needs to be made by the legislature.” [...]
County elected leaders from both political parties came together to urge the Montana Legislature to approve mail ballots for next month’s special election, saying it would improve voter access and save Montana taxpayers nearly a million dollars.
Governor Steve Bullock revived the push for mail-in ballots last week by issuing an amendatory veto. The initial bill to allow counties to conduct the special election by mail, SB 305, had bipartisan support, however, Republican leaders like Rep. Jeff Essmann and House Speaker Austin Knudsen tried to kill the bill. Essmann, chairman of the state GOP, sent a memo around ahead of the bill’s hearing, demanding his fellow party-mates oppose the bill for political reasons.
At Bold Nebraska, Mark Hefflinger writes—Nebraska PSC Denies Bold Alliance Motion to Ungroup 30+ Intervenors in Keystone XL Review:
The Nebraska Public Service Commission hearing officer’s original order on intervention in its review of TransCanada’s application for a state permit for its proposed Keystone XL pipeline severely limited the evidence which intervenors are allowed to present, and unfairly grouped over 30 organizations and individuals together, limiting their individual ability to present evidence and voice concerns.
On April 10, the Bold Alliance filed a motion to reconsider that order in order to allow the intervenors to be able to present meaningful evidence relevant to the statutory standards.
Today (April 13), the same hearing officer denied our motion, along with the motions of other intervenors.
Regardless of what happens, the Bold Alliance will stand up for the legal rights of the people whose voices deserve to be heard in this process.
At Dakota Free Press, Cory Allen Heidelberger writes—Obama Already Sped Up Infrastructure Approval Process; Don’t Put Environment at Further Risk:
At his Monday town hall here in Aberdeen, Senator John Thune fluff-responded to a question about speeding up the process for approving road projects (see video #13). Trump has talked about speeding up infrastructure approval, but wait—President Obama and the Republican Congress already did that in 2015:
At the end of 2015, Obama signed a measure called the FAST Act. Its title stands for “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation.” In addition to providing funds for infrastructure through 2020, the law established the steering council that reviews the permitting process to ensure projects were reviewed in a timely manner. The law also put limits on the environmental reviews which in theory should shorten a process that could cause permitting to drag on well beyond five years.
Some business groups say the Obama-era law is working and see little reason for an aggressive overhaul.
“You’ve got it down to a process that is two and a half years,” said Bill Kovacs, a senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. [...]
When the Chamber of Commerce says the regulatory process strikes the right balance between urgency and environmental review, there are probably already a few too many turtle homes getting bulldozed. But I’m willing to accede to the Chamber’s position here and say our infrastructure approval process is already sufficiently efficient, thanks to President Obama, and that we don’t need to put any more wetland drainage or other environmental damage on any faster track just to satisfy Trumpy slogans.
At The Political Environment of Wisconsin, James Rowen writes—'Because every Wisconsin child deserves a crap school':
Could be the Wisconsin GOP motto.
Or:
'Local control is dead.'
Or:
'Long live Big Government.'
How else to interpret legislation Republicans are introducing to roadblock local school funding referendums which are passing in large numbers because Republican legislators and right-wing GOP Gov. Scott Walker have slashed and further restricted school funding.
Which forces local residents to dip into their own pockets at tax time through referendums to finance the kind of schools they want and to make sure their kids can compete in the world once they flow out of Wisconsin in the brain drain.
At Blue Mass Group, charley-on-the-mta writes—Stability and stagnation in MA:
I was thinking about this since my last MBTA screed. Joan Vennochi beats me to the punch, using the poll showing [Gov. Charlie] Baker’s, uh, formidable popularity as a jumping-off point to show the underside of inequality:
Does Massachusetts live up to the hype? – The Boston Globe.
Not for people stuck on the wrong side of the income gap, who are desperate for affordable housing and not in the market for a $4 million condo unit in a revitalized Downtown Crossing. Not for the homeless, whose numbers have nearly doubled over the past nine years, according to a recent study commissioned by the Boston Foundation. Not for kids stuck in schools hindered by an outdated school funding formula. And not for those rail commuters who just experienced three miserable days of delays attributed to defective new locomotives.
Massachusetts honks are justified. We are #1 in education; #1 in being health-insured; we have a strong economy and low unemployment. We also have a hellacious inequality gap, one which is gnawing at the quality of life for those not in a position to benefit from industries that require the extremely-well-trained. Personally I don’t wish to live in the East Coast version of a gilded, class-bifurcated Silicon Valley.
Neither the successes nor the challenges are really about Baker at all. These are the result of factors that pre-date Baker by decades, if not centuries. Actions taken or not taken by him and the legislature will also be felt in the generational terms.
Baker re-re-invented himself between 2010 (angry!) and 2014 (sober bean-counting manager). He was basically content to inherit a post-Deval Patrick political consensus: Play to our strengths in tech, health care and education; don’t do anything too crazy on taxes, up or down; manage the bureaucracies. This comports perfectly well with a House leadership that, if anything, is even more small-c conservative than he is.