WAGES TUMBLE AS THINGS CONTINUE TO GET WORSE AND WORSE FOR ARIZONA'S POOR AND WORKING CLASS

As if things weren't bad enough for Arizona's poor and working class, what with the way the education system fails us, or how we live under constant threat of “financial devastation,” yesterday brought new bad news for people trying to get by on low incomes.

It should come as no surprise then that Arizona's poverty rate has spiked upwards to almost 20% post-recession when we see these recent figures from the Economic Policy Institute. While rich people and politicians threaten "economic apocalypse!" over proposed minimum wage hikes, hold the unemployed hostage, and cut food stamps, the poor have continued to suffer the brunt of the deepening and continuing economic crisis.

According to the EPI data, Arizona ranked ninth worst in the country in wage erosion, with paychecks for the bottom 20th percentile dropping in constant dollars significantly beyond the 68 cents national median.

According to the report:

The figure below shows that low-wage earners— wage-earners at the 20th percentile— have experienced wage erosion in nearly every state.  Between 2009 and 2013, low-wage earners’ wages declined in every state except three (West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota). Real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) wage erosion was greatest in Maryland (-$1.24), Massachusetts (-$1.18), and New Jersey (-$1.16) during this period.  The national average decline over this period was $0.68 or 6.4 percent. Further, wage erosion was not confined to this portion of the wage spectrum.  Wages at both the 10th percentile (“very low wages”), and the median wage saw erosion in forty-five states and the District of Columbia over this period.

With the recent Davos gathering of billionaires identifying income inequality as the most significant threat to stability, you wonder just how far Arizona ricos are willing to push things. The riots that have repeatedly broken out in Rio and other places over things like increased bus fares must certainly have been on the minds of the masters of the universe when they made that declaration from the safety of their luxury retreat. 

Meanwhile, the Tucson city council is debating raising ticket prices tonight, tightening the squeeze even further on the already strained budgets of the poor and working class. Arizona already ranks second in income inequality, and the disparities between rich and poor are growing.

Maybe Arizona isn't Rio, but politicians and rich people should be thinking carefully about just how far they can push Arizona's poor and working class. We have already borne a disproportionate share of the costs for a crisis we didn't cause, and we can't help but notice that the rich are doing better than ever.

Phoenix makes its poorest residents pay for the cushy pensions of the very cops who jail and kill them

As the City of Phoenix has been hemming and hawing about whether it will eliminate its absurdly regressive 2% sales tax on food (the cost of which disproportionately falls on the poor), the Arizona Republic reports that those charged with policing the city's poor have been making a killing (while actually doing the killing) by taking advantage of a city policy that let's retiring cops and firefighters cash out unused sick and vacation pay.  It's against the law, but no one is talking about jail. After all, these are cops, not ordinary criminals.

Phoenix allows officers to take saved up sick and vacation time as additional pay or one time payout, which has allowed some cops to massively pad their paychecks.  Some of these payments, which the state views as illegal, have totaled in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars – per person. The Republic reports that according to their research more than a dozen retiring officers received over a hundred thousand dollars each in added salary in their final years on the job.  More than a hundred retired cops receive pensions that amount to more than twice the average wage for Arizona workers.   Some have taken home over a million dollars in added pay while more than 650 have gotten over a quarter million dollars in lump sum payments, with ten boosting their lump sum payouts to over $700,000.

And it's not like Phoenix cops can plead poverty.  City cops, who at just shy of $60,000 a year already rake in $10,000 more than the statewide average for law enforcement, also make double the typical wage of other City of Phoenix employees, people who get hit much harder by that 2% sales tax than do their fellow workers in blue.  

Many of these city workers were forced to take pay cuts, freezes and furloughs in the past, as with so many other workers at the bottom of the economic ladder.  And, as is typical with austerity, while the rhetoric may be about shared sacrifice, the real pain is only distributed at the bottom.  For instance, city manager David Cavazos got a $78,000 raise last year.  Ironically, even the head of the cop union PLEA thought it was outrageous.  Other city managers got raises as well.  Meanwhile the budget has been balanced on the backs of the poor and low-paid city workers.

Which certainly puts the whole controversy in a different light. Given that the prime target of policing is the poor, essentially what the City of Phoenix is doing is making its poorest residents – and lower paid city workers – pay for the cushy double-dipping retirement plans of the very cops who will arrest, beat and imprison them and their families. Now that hardly seems fair. Not to mention that the example of the city's law enforcement breaking state law for financial gain with impunity doesn't really look good (no arrest or jail for them, apparently!).

At the very least, those who expect to benefit from this police protection ought to be the ones who pay for it. At the end of the day, it's the city's wealthy population who benefit most from keeping the poor, unemployed and over-taxed population in line. So, if the city insists on paying its hired killers such high wages, maybe they should retire the levy on food and replace it with a tax on high end restaurants and personal chefs.  You know, a little shared sacrifice.  At least we'd have some consistency. Something says that proposal would be a non-starter.

Gunning for that Number One Spot

In the four months since the Sandy Hook school massacre the debate around gun control has polarized a section of American opinion on the types of firearms available to the public for purchase, who should have access to them, and how difficult should it be to acquire one.  A paranoia persists amongst the American right wing that the Obama administration will be using the mass shootings as pretext to initiate a federal "gun grab."  Scenarios amongst the right have ranged from the President of the NRA alleging that the government will be going door to door to confiscate weapons, to a pair of US congressmen from Oklahoma who have charged the Obama administration are behind the months long ammunition shortage. The impact of the shortages on ammunition and firearm sales, when combined with an apocalyptic fear of the federal government carrying out a gun seizure (of majority white gun owners nonetheless), has resulted in handsome profits for the firearms industry.

While there has been no attempt at gun control in Arizona, proponents of firearms have responded to calls from right wing political organizations to mobilize at the state capitol for a series of rallies to denounce any potential "gun grab" by the federal government. Hundreds gathered at various rallies at  the Arizona state capitol to demonstrate against any proposed legislation to further regulate the sale of firearms, ammunition, and magazines by the federal government.  The rallies are a mixed crowd of gun enthusiasts, anti-immigrant biker gangs, border militia members, and political opportunists looking to capitalize from the far-right's latest bout of persecution complex.

The rallies at the state capitol were not in response to any specific gun control laws being passed in the Arizona state legislature since there is no chance any bills advance in the Republican majority, gun friendly legislature. Quite the opposite, in recent years the state legislature have passed a number of laws over the years which reinforce gun owners' rights, and facilitate the accessibility with which guns are available to purchase from dealers and private citizens.  It's not surprising that Arizona is considered the number one state to be a gun owner in the United States.

 The February 16th Second Amendment rally at the Arizona state capitol.

Arizona was recently ranked as the friendliest state for gun owners by Guns and Ammo Magazine based upon a criteria of a person's ability to open carry or carry a concealed weapon in public, the ability to purchase MSRs (Modern Sports Rifles) such as AR-15s and AK-47s without restriction, the lack of restrictions to obtain Class 3/NFA firearms beyond the federal law, the passing of Stand Your Ground laws regarding "self defense", and any other laws on the book which restrict gun or ammunition purchases.  In addition, Arizona is one of the top states for individuals who have applied for manufacturing licenses to begin producing or customizing firearms.

Arizona scored a near perfect score of 49 in the magazine's ranking, and this is in no small part due to Republican state legislators have sponsored a slew of pro-gun legislation in recent years.  While few of the more recent bills have made it to the governor's office for final approval in to law, there have been a handful of eye brow raising bills which made national news headlines. The most controversial bill is HB 2291 which would prohibit any federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal gun laws in Arizona, making any such enforcement a Class 6 felony, and require local law enforcement to arrest the federal officer enforcing the law.  Given the supremacy clause of the US constitution it seems unlikely that legislators will approve the bill that is as likely a political stunt as it is a genuine attempt at secession.

Another which was passed last week prohibits city gun buy backs from destroying the weapons turned in, the new law will require cities to resell these firearms.  In Arizona it is the poor and working class who are compelled to disarm with offers of  "guns for groceries", however there is the Armed Citizens Project which seems keen to buck the perception of the white male gun owner by offering free shotguns in limited numbers to single women and homeowners in "high crime" neighborhoods in Tucson.

Most amusing are some of the hypotheticals of the state's slide into weaponization as a prescription for society's problems, for example could it be possible for working class and poor folks in the near future to turn in a firearm for a grocery credit, and, due to the "buy back" law, that same firearm could be back in their home courtesy of the Armed Citizens Project. It's a doubtful scenario, but the politic of the gun is a driving force in right wing ideology across the state and there may be unforeseen consequences to come from the push to the weaponization of Arizona.

Arizona GOP and gun lobby back racist 'poverty firearm confiscation', welcome state intervention into gun market

Oh, sweet irony.  Perhaps rivaled only by our magnificent sunsets, it's the one consistent joy of living in Arizona.  Endorsing what is in effect a confiscatory transfer of guns from poor people of color to the white middle class, Jan Brewer signed into law Monday a bill that blocks cities that organize gun buyback programs from destroying them after they are handed in.  According to the new law, cities will be required to sell them instead.

Thanks to the panic around gun regulation these days, it's a seller's market.  So, who's selling, and why?  We can start by looking at some cold, hard facts.  With Arizona's unemployment rate still higher than the national average after years of a grinding, ongoing economic crisis that has disproportionately affected minorities, many people are surely selling these weapons for short term cash or to take care of basic needs.  Indeed, a recent Tucson buyback ("no questions asked") offered only grocery store gift cards as payment (a restriction that probably itself reflects racist and anti-poor biases).  

An upcoming buyback in Phoenix offers grocery and electronics store gift cards -- bread and circuses, essentially, for the poor.  Gun dealers in Tucson themselves set up shop outside the buyback event, offering $50 -- a pittance -- to anyone willing to sell.  And, as you would expect, Arizona ranks high in terms of population in poverty, and that rate itself is highly racialized.  Thus, many of the "voluntary" gun sales probably ought more realistically to be viewed as poverty confiscations from a politically disenfranchised class of people.

In addition, Arizona has one of the worst levels of felony disenfranchisement by race in the country.  According to a report by the Sentencing Project, an organization that advocates for sentencing reform, Arizona ranked in the top ten of states for felony disenfranchisement.  And, when you drill down into those numbers, what you find is that they break down quite disproportionately along racial lines.  Arizona ranks near the top, with 12.1% of the black population being disenfranchised.  This in a state where African-Americans make up only 4.5% of the overall population.

               

                                               

                                

If white Arizona gun owners are a persecuted group, constantly under threat, then never before has such a targeted group found such a sympathetic ear in government.

                                               

Indeed, Arizona incarcerates whites at rates far lower than non-whites.  Blacks in the Copper State are locked up almost six times as often as whites, and Latinos are incarcerated at 1.8 times the rate as whites -- almost twice as often.  And this is not a result of whites committing less crime.  As an Arizona AZLU investigation of DPS stops revealed, cops are more likely to stop people who aren't white -- despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with contraband after being searched.  And this despite cops searching whites less frequently.  So cops are paying more attention to people who aren't white.  Or, looked at another way, whites are getting a pass from cops.  What this means, of course, is that all things being equal, you are more likely to wind up a felon in Arizona if you aren't white.

What's more, felons actually have more reason to need to own a gun than non-felons, given that they are much more likely to live in high-crime parts of the city where policing is adversarial or non-responsive, or where it makes more sense to deal with problems first hand rather than involve the police, whether to avoid making trouble or out of a fear that the cops will just make the situation worse.

Meanwhile, anyone who has attended any of the seemingly constant stream of 2nd Amendment rallies at the capitol can attest that the political wing of the pro-gun movement is overwhelmingly white.  And they are the opposite of disenfranchised.  Gun rallies feature a virtual who's who of party officials.  The Republican power structure caters to their paranoid ravings, passing one gun liberalization law after another.

This is remarkable because it goes so clearly against the popular narrative of gun rights under siege that predominates the movement.  It's a peculiar feature of the white middle class right in Arizona that it perceives itself to be constantly under attack, despite its political agents being firmly ensconced within the political establishment.  If white Arizona gun owners are a persecuted group, constantly under threat, then never before has such a targeted group found such a sympathetic ear in government.

So what we have here is a state-mandated intervention in the gun market for a privileged set of consumers -- at the expense of a disenfranchised class with little recourse -- quite ironic given the free market, anti-government sensibilities of most gun owners!  Further, this new statute is designed to prevent cities from circumventing a 2010 law aimed at forcing them to sell seized weapons to federally licensed dealers, thus making it set to neatly resolve the supply problems that white middle class gun owners have been complaining about since the latest wave of white gun-grabber paranoia set in, clearing gun store shelves state-wide.  Of course, the irony is that this supply problem is essentially being solved by state-legislated gun confiscation, via poverty and felony.  However, white middle class gun owners seem fine with it because they are the beneficiaries.

Of course, this lines up perfectly with the history of white gun ownership in the United States, which despite the rhetoric of the armed white right, has always really been about defending reactionary and racist tyranny policies, not opposing them.  White gun owners like to trot out and appropriate the imagery and history of armed struggles of people of color, whether slaves or Native Americans, but the truth is the very armed whites who today use those arguments would back then have almost certainly been the defenders of slavery and the wars against Indigenous peoples.

How do we know?  Because that's what armed whites did then.  Despite their current fantasies, with very rare exception (John Brown, the militant left in the 70's), armed white people have served again and again as a bulwark of tyranny, not as its opposition.  They have formed slave patrols, Klan night riders, Anti-Mexican militias, border vigilante paramilitaries, strike breakers and gangs of Indian-killers.

                                              

Even disregarding the history, if a well-armed white population were de facto a counter-force against contemporary government authority, then one is hard-pressed to see the evidence of it in a society that imprisons more people than any other country on Earth and apparently feels no restriction on its imperial ambitions from its gun-toting domestic population.

                                               

But this should come as no surprise: after all, this is a settler society, and in settler societies the armed population serves as an auxiliary to state power, not a hedge against it.  Even disregarding the history, if a well-armed white population were a de facto counter-force against contemporary government authority, then one is hard-pressed to see the evidence of it in a society that imprisons more people than any other country on Earth and apparently feels no restriction on its imperial ambitions from its gun-toting domestic population.  The vast majority of armed whites, it turns out, have always had a very selective definition of tyranny and likewise have been all too eager to defend reactionary, racist politics.  This echoes today in the white gun movement's support for border controls and armed immigration militants.  And as we see with support for this law, that's a hypocrisy they are quite happy to embrace.

But what would a really consistent pro-gun position look like?  Here are a few ideas.  First, it would reject this state-backed confiscation from the poor and marginalized and propose instead remedies to poverty and criminalization.  Second, it would reverse the pro-gun movement's parasitic relationship to a disenfranchised population; rather than seeking to expropriate the guns owned by poor and non-white Arizonans, it would instead insist that their rights be defended and extended.  Importantly, it would demand an end to the ban on felons owning firearms.  And it would call for an end to police seizures of weapons from the poor, regardless of legality.  Finally, it would demand a demilitarization of the police and immediate measures to end racist disparities in policing, imprisonment and sentencing.  It would break publicly with law enforcement, especially racist reactionaries like Sheriff Paul Babeu and Joe Arpaio.  And it would end any affiliations with racist border militias and make its rallies no-go zones for fascists.

The white pro-gun movement needs to break from its reactionary tradition and embrace in a genuine way the history it currently exploits and engages with only superficially.  If it wants to cite the legacy of slave and Indigenous resistance as its lineage, then it needs to stop fetishizing the imagery and start standing by the content.