Biden names Flake as an ambassador

 From Politico - 

Biden nominates ex-GOP Sen. Jeff Flake as ambassador to Turkey

President Joe Biden on Tuesday nominated former Sen. Jeff Flake to serve as ambassador to Turkey, extending a high-profile diplomatic post to the anti-Trump Republican.

Flake praised the Biden administration’s “strong, experienced and capable team representing U.S. interests abroad,” and nodded to the significance of selecting him for such a strategically important post.

Two things -

1. Flake going Turkey isn't bad; on the other hand, while it's not as tough as being assigned to Russia, Turkey's going to be a hot spot.  I expect that Flake will earn his paycheck.

2. I personally despise the wording of this headline.  Placing "ex" in front of "GOP" make it seems as if Flake is no longer a Republican.  He *is*; he just used to be a Senator.

Add "Magician" to Jeff Flake's resume

...Turns out he can be in two places at once...

By now, everyone knows about the US Senate vote on Friday that stripped anti-Obamacare provisions from a bill to keep the federal government operating in the absence of a full budget (aka - "continuing resolution", or "CR").

The bill now goes back to the US House, where the Republicans have issued a laundry list of demands as their price for passing a CR.

Prediction:  Government shutdown, with GOPers/tea party types dancing in the streets as national parks close and military veterans and service members go without benefits and pay.  However, I digress...

It was a bit of news here in AZ when news broke that AZ's junior senator, Republican Jeff Flake would miss the vote in order to attend the wedding of one of his sons (not the budding bigot, another one).

While there are some who have criticized Flake for choosing to attend a significant family event (interestingly, most of the criticisms have come from the right), I don't have problem with it -

His vote would not have made a difference in the outcome, and the wedding of one of his children is truly significant.  Most people would take time away from their jobs for such an occasion; it would be hypocritical to expect different from him.

Of course, if he had been in DC and voted, as he stated that he would have if he had been present in DC, to deny health insurance to millions of Americans, that would have been worthy of criticism.

Serious criticism.

However, this post is about some needling (minor  criticism) over some sloppiness.

While he was enjoying is son's nuptials in Mesa, he sent out an email (OK, it was probably sent by one of his staffers, but it was over Flake's name, so that makes it Flake's).

From the email -

"Update From Washington" during a week where the biggest Flake news is that he *isn't* in Washington?

Somebody isn't paying attention or is just completely tone deaf..

Jeff Flake: goes from America's most heartless flip-flopper to America's least popular senator

...Probably not a coincidence there...

From The Atlantic Wire, written by Alexander Abad-Santos -

It wasn't easy dethroning Mitch McConnell as America's least favorite Senator, but Jeff Flake has done that in just three short months, a new poll out Monday reveals — and his fall from rising-star grace is not quite the head-scratcher you might think. In November, Flake won his Arizona Senate seat by almost 5 percentage points, but it was a lot closer than "the double-digit lead he held earlier in the year," ABC News reported at the time. Flake, a popular six-time Congressman who won previous elections with as much as 74 percent of the vote, strode into the seat of former Minority Whip Jon Kyl as a face of turnaround for the state and the Republican party. But, oh, how the mighty can fall in a time of guns, immigration, and constant polling.

The Numbers

Public Policy Polling, in their latest survey on the fallout of the recent vote on gun legislation, explains just how much people don't like Mr. Flake:

Just 32% of voters approve of him to 51% who disapprove and that -19 net approval rating makes him the most unpopular sitting Senator we've polled on, taking that label from Mitch McConnell.

 Flake responded by criticizing the polling company, Public Policy Polling (PPP), but instead he might want to examine his own actions - he's the one who looked a mother of one of the victims of the mass shooting in Aurora, CO and told her that he supported background checks for gun purchases, and then went out and voted to kill a Senate measure that would have required background checks as part of most gun transactions.

That's not PPP's problem, that's his.


If Flake was here, I'd ask him one question:

Were you wearing dancing shoes when you danced on the grave "attended the dedication of a Capitol meeting room to the memory" of Gabe Zimmerman, a Congressional staffer who was gunned down in the line of duty, or were you already wearing your flip-flops?
 

Running and hiding from open debate? That's so 2010...

Everybody remembers the "brain freeze heard 'round the world" when Governor Jan Brewer blanked for more than 13 seconds during her first televised debate with Democratic nominee Terry Goddard.

After her embarrassing performance, she and her handlers decided that the "first" debate would be the "only" debate.

Many other Republican candidates, looking at the poll numbers that indicated that 2010 was going to be a wave year for the Republicans, followed suit.  There was no reason to risk a debate gaffe derailing an all-but-certain victory.

And for the most part, the plan worked (or at least, it didn't *not* work) - the 2010 wave swamped the US House, state legislatures, and governor's mansions coast-to-coast.  After the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled the US House, became a large enough minority caucus in the US Senate so that they have been able to block pretty near every remotely positive measure, controlled all or part of 35 state legislatures, and controlled 29 governor's offices.

Fast-forward to 2012 and while it is shaping up to be a far more balanced year, yet many Republicans are campaigning like it's 2010 all over again.

In Arizona, both Republican Senate nominee Jeff Flake and CD9 nominee Vernon Parker are playing the "run and hide" card for all it's worth.

Flake has declined to publicly debate Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee (though to be fair, per the linked article, he has agreed to a debate with Carmona, in a TV studio with no live audience, for 30 minutes only).

Parker is just ignoring Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic nominee, and the voters in the new Ninth Congressional District.  He simply has not responded to debate inquiries.

In 2012, Flake and Parker, and certain other Republicans, are still running from their 2010 playbook, which had a primary theme of "Keep your head down and your mouth closed.  If you don't screw up, you'll win."

In 2010, that scheme worked in nearly all but the most heavily Democratic districts.

In 2012, the situations and districts here are much more competitive and the "bunker" mentality and approach isn't going to work for any candidate.

Having said all that, there are candidates who legally *cannot* avoid at least some interaction with voters and the other candidates.

Clean Elections candidates must participate in a CE-sponsored debate as a condition of receiving funds from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. 

This looks to be the busiest week of the general election season in terms of Clean Elections debates.

- Monday, September 24, LD11 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Pima Community College - Northwest Campus, 7600 N. Shannon Road in Tucson

- Tuesday, September 25, LD20 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU West - La Sala Ballroom, 4701 W. Thunderbird Road in Glendale

- Tuesday, September 25, LD24 Senate and House, 5:30 p.m. at A.E. England Building (ASU Downtown campus), 424 N. Central Avenue in Phoenix

- Wednesday, September 26, LD14 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Benson City Council Chambers, 120 W. 6th Street in Benson

- Thursday, September 27, LD16 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU-Poly Cooley Ballroom B, 7001 E. Williams Field Road, Mesa

- Thursday, September 27, LD27 Senate and House, ASU-Mercado, Room C145, 502 E. Monroe Street in Phoenix

Update: Campaign Committees

There have been a few developments on the 2012 campaign committee front since the last update.


...In the race for US Senate, Don Bivens, attorney and former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, has formed a committee.  According to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's The Fix, the committee is an exploratory one, and Bivens has said that he will make a final decision on running around Labor Day.

...In legislative developments -

- Former state legislator David Bradley has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD28 state senate.

- Martin Quezada has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.

- Lorenzo Sierra Jr. has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.

- Michael Snitz has formed a committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD14 state representative.

Note:  all of the districts listed will change once the Independent Redistricting Commission puts together the new maps.

Active Congressional committee fundraising totals (April thru June) (incumbents italicized):

Raul Grijalva (D) - $88233 raised, $70724 on hand
Chuck Gray (R) - $3359 raised, $16443 on hand
Trent Franks (R) - $59507 raised, $41068 on hand, $372477 in debt
David Schweikert (R) - $2230 raised, $17881 on hand, $501800 in debt
David Schweikert (R) (2nd committee) - $250777 raised, $336262 on hand
Gabrielle Giffords (D) - $281177 raised, $787949 on hand
Travis Grantham (R) - $13300 raised, $13240 on hand
Kirk Adams (R) - $230525 raised, $209225 on hand
Ann Kirkpatrick (D) - $221289 raised, $215723 on hand
Paul Gosar (R) - $166544 raised, $138392 on hand
Ed Pastor (D) - $93158 raised, $1391488 on hand
Ben Quayle (R) - $282964 raised, $370277 on hand, $7487 in debt
Matt Salmon (R) - $162289 raised, $155744 on hand, $16889 in debt
Gabriela Saucedo Mercer (R) - $22397 raised, $21351 on hand, $485 in debt
Wenona Benally Baldenegro (D) - $8446 raised, $4603 on hand

Note: because incumbent US Representative Jeff Flake is now running for US Senate, his fundraising reports are not available online.

Note2: All numbers rounded to the nearest dollar.

Note3: I didn't list the district of the Congressional committees because those are going to change in a few months.

Observation:  Aren't the Republicans the ones who campaign on their opposition to debt?  Just sayin'...

- No changes in municipal campaign committees in Tempe and Scottsdale, though that should change soon - sources report that there is a poll in the field regarding the Tempe mayor's race. Some say it's a push poll, others say it's legit. I'm not a Tempe resident, so I didn't get the calls and cannot evaluate it directly.

Later...

AZ-Sen starting line: Some candidates have a head start

While any candidate who jumps into for the US Senate will be sure to start raising money, some potential candidates already have a head start.  They already have federal campaign committees formed, and even if the committees are for some other office, the cash can be transferred to a Senate run.

The most recent "cash on hand" reported for the federal campaign committees of selected possible candidates -

Republicans -

JD Hayworth - $148,224.47

Jeff Flake - $627,851.61

John Shadegg - $154.99

David Schweikert - $16,308.33

Ruth McClung - $107,649.87 (included because she has so much cash on hand)

Jonathan Paton - $12,389.26

Ben Quayle - $7607.04


Democrats -

Ed Pastor - $1,391,936.29

Gabrielle Giffords - $285,501.24

Raul Grijalva - $30,621.77

Ann Kirkpatrick - $13,896.86


Just for giggles -

Joe Arpaio - $2,829,160.00

That number is worthy of giggles because while it dwarfs every other potential candidate's cash on hand, it doesn't matter - it's for his county sheriff candidacy and cannot be transferred to a federal committee.


While there has been a little internet chatter over a possible Pastor candidacy and his well-stocked campaign warchest and some of the other potential candidates have little or no cash for a federal campaign, once a legit candidate enters the race he or she will be able to raise money quickly.

Of course, they'll have to.  :)

Breaking: Politico.com reporting Jon Kyl not running for reelection

Thanks for the heads-up on this goes out to the blog Arizona's Politics...

From Politico, written by David Catanese -

Kyl to retire, won't seek another term



Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl will announce he won't seek another term at a press conference in his home state Thursday morning, POLITICO has learned.

The third-term Kyl was first elected to the Senate in 1994.

A GOP operative notes that the last time Arizona elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate was 1988 -- 22 years ago.

Assuming this report is accurate, and rumors to this effect have been swirling for weeks, even months, this development, along with redistricting and the addition of a ninth Congressional seat to Arizona, would turn next year's elections here into complete free-for-all.

Look for Republicans Jeff Flake and John Shadegg, current and former members of Congress, respectively, to be two of the most prominent names in any discussion of potential candidates to replace Kyl.

They won't be the *only* ones, however.

More later...

Flake, Franks, and Shadegg: Protectors of child marriage, not protectors of children

Lost in the hubbub surrounding the culmination of the 2nd Session of the 111th Congress (DREAM Act, DADT, tax cut "compromise", omnibus spending bill, etc.) is the realization that a certain group in D.C. (hereafter referred to by the Randomly chosen mathematical variable "Rs" :) ) is still doing everything that they can to block even the least controversial legislation.

On Thursday, the party of "No" donned its costume for the D.C. Christmas pageant, going with the "Ebenezer" look.  (Call it a "truth in advertising moment").

They spent most of the week voting against nearly *everything.*

In itself, that isn't noteworthy anymore - they've spent the last two years voting against every piece of significant legislation.  The measures that they haven't killed outright, they've blocked as much as possible (except for the infamous tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans).

However, as the calendar has turned toward the Christmas holiday, and toward the end of the 111th Congress, their partisan obstructionism has turned into petty meanness.

This trend was highlighted Thursday, when the House Republicans killed S. 987, the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010.

This bill would have made the ending of child marriage in developing countries a goal of U.S. foreign policy.

The bill should have passed easily, and would have, if House leadership had been able to bring it to the floor under normal procedures.  However, due to the backlog caused by Republican obstruction of everything and the impending end of the 111th Congress, S. 987 was brought up for consideration under "suspension of the rules," meaning that a 2/3 majority vote was required for passage.

The bill was sponsored in the Senate by Dick Durbin and had a bipartisan list of 42 cosponsors, and was approved by the Senate unanimously.  The related House versions of the bill, H.R. 2103 and H.R. 6521 boast more than 120 cosponsors drawn from both sides of the aisle.

With that kind of broad bipartisan support, it should have passed easily (not even Rs have the chutzpah/arrogance to publicly support the practice of forcing young girls to marry men who are two, three, or more times their own age).

Then certain "pro-life" groups started whispering that this bill would cause an increase in abortions, even though abortion, "family planning" or even "reproductive rights" are never even mentioned in it.

The final House vote on the bill was 241 in favor, 166 against.  A clear majority, but not the requisite 2/3 needed for passage.

157 Republicans, including Arizona's Three Amigos, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg, expressed their support of child marriage by voting against the bill, but only one of the 157, Dan Burton of Indiana was honest enough to stand and speak to his vote.  And even he only professed financial reservations about the bill (estimated: $87 million over 10 years, *if* money was appropriated in a later bill).

In an interesting non-development, none of the Three Amigos seems to have put out a press release touting their victorious defense of the institution of child marriage. 

Why is that?

The AZ Republic is applying some fresh Chapstick and puckering up

The editorial board of the Arizona Republic is kissing up to the Republicans in AZ's delegation to Congress (I won't engage in unseemly speculation about which part of the Rs they are trying to kiss :) ).

The latest indication of this activity is the poorly written love letter masquerading as an "analysis" piece that the Rep published on Sunday.

The piece -

Vote gives Arizona more clout in Congress

The midterm elections will likely boost Arizona's clout in Congress, giving the state's new delegation greater power in crafting legislation and deciding how billions of federal taxpayer dollars will be spent.

Among the results, Arizona lawmakers say, could be increased highway funds for the state, more money for border security and even the passage of legislation to allow the construction of a huge, controversial new copper mine near Superior.

The growing influence of the state begins in the U.S. House. A new Republican majority among Arizona's House delegation ensures that Arizona's voice will be heard by the GOP House leaders who take control in January.

More "influence" in the House?

More federal projects for Arizona?

Riiiiiggghhhht...

Let's see:

Jeff Flake (CD6) has made a career out of taking an apparently principled stand against earmarks or any projects for his district (to be fair to Flake, it isn't just his district - like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, he hates *everything.*  Unlike the fictional character Mikey however, he doesn't change in the face of reality), but he wins reelection every year in his R-heavy district because he is well-coiffed, smiles a lot, and he isn't an embarrassment (say, in the mold of J.D. Hayworth).

Trent Franks (CD2) actively works against highway money for his district.  He will occasionally support a local project, but those usually involve the construction of jails or the purchase of some new technology for law enforcement.  And even in that, he seems almost ashamed for doing something that might possibly help his constituents (even if it's less "helping his constituents" and more "helping to imprison his constituents").  In fact, the only thing he exhibits any enthusiasm around is his quest to destroy a woman's right to choose.

Newly-electeds Paul Gosar (CD1) and David Schweikert (CD5) were elected on tea party/pro-corporate platforms and seem unlikely to support any efforts to help Arizonans...unless those Arizonans have last names that can be abbreviated "Corp.", "Inc.", or "LLC".  And have contributed to their campaigns.

The newly-elected Ben Quayle (CD3) may be the House member most likely to support projects for his district.  He's got two years to establish his "representative" bona fides before running for reelection after the redistricting process changes his district.  Still, given his daddy's (and his daddy's friends') heavy involvement in his campaign, he seems likely to favor projects that will help the companies of his donors, not his constituents.

As for AZ's contingent in the U.S. Senate, both Jon Kyl and John McCain have been in D.C. for decades, and for decades, they haven't worked for Arizona.

Kyl openly works for Big Business, protecting their interests to the exclusion of all else, including the interests of the average Arizonan.

McCain openly works for John McCain.  Period.


The article is right about one thing, though. 

The change in the partisan balance in Congress, and in Arizona's delegation to Congress, will almost certainly mean that the Resolution Copper land swap/swipe will go through.  Of course, while that is sold as a benefit to Arizonans (in the form of mining jobs and tax revenue, while ignoring the multi-generational costs of a destroyed environment and watershed, and the savaging of ancestral Native lands held in "trust" by the federal government), the big beneficiary will be a large, multi-national corporation, Rio Tinto.

Rio Tinto (or its Resolution Copper subsidiary) has donated directly to the campaign committees, or to mining industry PACs that donated to the campaign committees, of almost every R member of AZ's delegation.  I couldn't find any direct or indirect contributions to Gosar in the time allotted for this post.

The results of Tuesday's elections will almost certainly result in more influence in Congress for the Rs in Arizona's Congressional delegation.  It almost certainly won't result in more influence in Congress for Arizona.


Certain people (and newspapers) in Arizona like to complain that AZ doesn't get its "fair share" of federal projects.

They may be correct.


So why do they continue to support candidates and electeds who are dedicated to opposing projects for Arizona?

Another Veterans' Group Grades Harry Mitchell - A+, of course

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Action Fund has given out its grades to Congress in its 2010 Congressional Report Card.

The grades for the AZ delegation can be found here.

Summary:

Harry Mitchell - A+ (whooo hoooo!)

Ann Kirkpatrick - A+

Ed Pastor - A

Gabrielle Giffords - B

Raul Grijalva - C

Jon Kyl - D

John McCain - D

Trent Franks - D

Jeff Flake - F

John Shaddegg - F


The interesting part?  The lowest-graded Democrat in Arizona, Raul Grijalva, still out-paced the highest-graded Republicans from our state, Franks, McCain, and Kyl.

Apparently "anti-war" isn't synonymous with "anti-warrior" and "pro-war" isn't synonymous with "pro-warrior."

No matter how much the Rs protest to the contrary.

The Three Amigos vote against American workers...yet again

They may be poor representatives of the people of their districts, their state, and their country, but dammit, *nobody* can claim that they are inconsistent about it.  They almost always vote against the best interests of their constituents.

On Wednesday, Arizona's Three Amigos, better known as Congressmen Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, and John Shadegg (Rs - Whichever Corporation Is Ponying Up The Campaign Cash That Week) voted as a bloc against H.R.2039, the Congressional Made in America Promise Act of 2009.

The bill simply amends the original Buy American Act by extending its provisions "to articles, materials, and supplies acquired for the use of any legislative branch office, including the House of Representatives and the Senate..."

The Buy American Act requires that when purchasing materials for its use, the government give preference to American-made items.

Extending the provisions of that act to cover materials purchased by and for the chambers of Congress may not have a huge direct economic benefit for American workers (Congress may spend a lot of money on its operations, but it's less than a drop in the bucket of the entire economy), but the move is significant as a symbol of Congress' efforts to address the plight of American workers.

Hence the united opposition of Franks, Flake, and Shadegg.

Shadegg isn't running for reelection (but look for his name to pop up in two years if Jon Kyl doesn't run for another term in the Senate), but the other two are, and are facing strong Democratic opponents.

John Thrasher, the career teacher challenging Franks in CD2, has already sent out a press release highlighting the anti-American worker vote.

Rebecca Schneider, challenging Flake in CD6, has a page on her website highlighting Flake's unwavering "no" votes against anything that would help his district, state, or country.

They can use your help in defeating these stalwarts of the Party of NO - please contribute to John Thrasher's campaign here and to Rebecca Schneider's campaign here.

Later!

H.R. 3962 passes - YESSSSSS!

After more than 12 hours of debate on a Saturday, and nearly 100 years of delay, dallying, and outright obstruction, the House passed a significant health care reform measure.

With a tally of 220 in favor, 215 against, and none voting present or not voting, H.R. 3962 passed the House of Representatives. 39 Democrats crossed over and voted with the Republicans, while 1 Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the majority Democrats.

All of AZ's Democrats voted in favor of health care reform; all of AZ's Republican opposed health care reform.

Harry Mitchell's statement of support (pre-vote) is here.
Gabrielle Giffords statement of support (pre-vote) here.
Ann Kirkpatrick's statement on her vote is here.
Jeff Flake's statement about his vote here.
Trent Franks' statement on the vote here.

The others, Pastor, Grijalva, and Shadegg, didn't have relevent statements up on their House websites as of the writing of this post.

Biggest disappointment: By a vote of 240 to 194, with 1 voting present (AZ's John Shadegg...more on that in a moment), the House amended H.R. 3962 with language proposed by Bart Stupak (D-MI) to ban payments for abortions under the public option.

Shadegg's plan behind the "present" vote was that by voting that way, he could help defeat the amendment without actually voting against it. He thought that would be a good tactic to defeat the underlying bill. He thought that the anti-choice amendment made the bill palatable for some reluctant Dems.

As for AZ's delegation, the five Democrats voted against the Stupak amendment while Republicans Franks and Flake voted in support. [Thanks to commenter Eli Blake for spotting the typo here. This is the corrected version.]

As was noted by most of the speakers who opposed the amendment, funding for abortions was already pretty much banned anyway (Section 222, or page 110 of this .pdf, courtesy of the House Rules Committee). Stupak's amendment was actually a ploy to whittle away at private access to a legal medical procedure.

One ray of hope here: The amendment could still be stripped out in conference committee, which will be needed because the Senate's version of health care reform is *somewhat* different than the House's.


There's a lot more to say on this, but my cold is kicking my butt, so let me close with this:

Thank you, Congresswomen Giffords, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, Congressman Pastor, Congressman Grijalva, and especially (because he is my representative) Congressman Mitchell.

Your votes today to support the interests of your constituents ahead of the interests of big insurance companies illustrates why your constituents elected you in the first place.

And why they'll continue to elect you for as long as want to serve as their representatives.


Later...

Jeff Flake - does Congress' health insurance cover dislocated shoulders?

He should check into that, because he has been patting himself on the back awfully energetically recently.

Specifically, he has been outdoing himself in the "clever" department. Witness his press release on his "no" vote on H. Res. 784, a resolution honoring the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Chinese philospher Confucius.

From Flake's press release -

“He who spends time passing trivial legislation may find himself out of time to read healthcare bill,” said Flake.

His vote, and his quote, inspired me to see how consistent Congressman Flake has been in regard to his votes on "trivial" legislation.

For the purposes of this post, I'll only cover activities in Congress from 2003 thru 2005 (when the Republicans still had a majority in the House) and I'll define "trivial" having nothing to the regular business of governing or with the "big issues" of the day (9/11 aftermath, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the massive budget deficit, etc.).

Let's see -

In 2003 -

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 46, honoring the life and legacy of cartoonist Al Hirschfeld;

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 111, honoring the life and legacy of Fred Rogers, the star of PBS' "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood";

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 195, honoring Sammy Sosa on the occasion of Sosa hitting his 500th home run;

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 357, honoring the life and legacy of entertainer Bob Hope;

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 359, welcoming the Dalai Lama to the United States on the occasion of his visit in 2003;

In 2oo4,

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H.Res. 427, honoring the new leadership of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam and calling for religious tolerance on the part of the government of Vietnam;

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 578, supporting the goals of Financial Literacy Month. This one doesn't really fall into my definition of trivial (for the purposes of this post), but since it begins "Whereas the financial services industry in the United States benefits millions of people in the United States..." it merits inclusion here in light of the financial services industry's meltdown a few short years later due to the fact that it isn't run for the benefit of "millions of people," instead being operated for the benefit of a few people at the very top of the financial services corporations.

Credit where credit is due department: Flake voted against this one in 2005, when it was H. Res. 148.

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 660, commemorating Randy Johnson's perfect game on May 18, 2004. Flake was a cosponsor of this piece of vital legislation;

In 2005,

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res 479, recognizing the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution;

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 500, memorializing a Bermuda Triangle disappearance from 1945;

- Flake voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 579, supporting the protection of the Christmas holiday and its symbols;


And when he wasn't voting for trivial legislation, he was sponsoring or cosponsoring some of it.

- In 2004, Flake sponsored H. Con. Res. 410, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the constitution of the Marshall Islands;

- In 2003, Flake cosponsored H. Res. 125, honoring the long history of Freemasons in the United States;

- In 2005, Flake cosponsored H. Res. 551, honoring the 50th anniversary of the conservative magazine National Review;

- In 2006, Flake cosponsored H. Res. 1089, honoring the life of economist Milton Friedman.

And it's not as if being in the minority has focused Flake's attention on matters of true import this year - he signed on as a cosponsor of H. Res. 388, honoring mothers and supporting Mothers Day and he voted "aye" in support of H. Res. 60 to honor U of Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford on winning the 2008 Heisman Trophy.

Now, I don't have any problem with most of the above bills and resolutions (excepting the financial service industry smooch-jobs, and Flake ended up voting against those after 2003), and even I think that the measure regarding the 2560th birthday of Confucius is more than a little unnecessary.

However, that bill, the one he so snarkily voted against, is no more wasteful of Congress' time than the bills that he voted for and/or sponsored earlier in the decade.

Flake should forego the hypocritical self congratulations and focus on leading by example - if he wants to criticize his colleagues for expending time and effort on meaningless matters, that's his prerogative.

He should just live and work to the standards that he is holding others to.

The U.S. House admonishes Rep. Joe Wilson (R-Sons of Confederate Veterans)

By a vote of 240 - 179, with 5 present and 10 members not voting, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to "disapprove" of Rep. Joe Wilson's behavior during President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last week. Reuters coverage here.

In case you have a really short memory, Wilson is the South Carolina Republican who shouted "you lie!" at the President during the speech.

The vote was almost totally along party lines, with only 12 Democrats crossing over to vote against the resolution disapproving of Wilson's breach of House decorum and only 7 Republicans voting to support the resolution.

In a curious twist, 2 of the 19 crossovers came from AZ - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) voted against, and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) voted for it.

From Giffords' statement on the vote -

It is unfortunate that Congressman Wilson has not apologized to our colleagues for his rude outburst. He should. Heckling the President of the United States while he is addressing a joint session of Congress is totally unacceptable for a member of this body. The American people know this and Congressman Wilson knows this – that is why he apologized to President Obama. We should not waste any more time on this matter. We need to stay focused on health insurance reform and improving our economy.

From Flake's statement on the vote -

Congressman Wilson is a good man, and I have confidence that his apology to President Obama was sincere,” said Flake. “However, his actions violated the rules of decorum of the House of Representatives.

While the tenor of political debate seems to get more disrespectful every year, the floor of the House of Representatives has always provided a welcome respite. Even the fiercest political opponents refer to each other as ‘gentleman’ and afford one another civility and respect. We need to uphold that tradition.

Despite my suspicion that this resolution was driven as much by partisan politics as upholding precedent, I believe that it’s important to maintain the rules of decorum in the House and I supported its passage.

John Shadegg (R-Big Insurance) also has a statement out there, but it's a little less statesman-like than the other two ("stateswoman-like" in Giffords' case) - he blames the Democrats for the outburst, conflating Wilson's direct and personal insult of the President in the House chamber (interrupting and heckling President Obama) with Democratic criticisms of then-President Bush.

Even though Bush wasn't speaking when the criticisms were issued.

Even though there is a big difference between saying "No!" (in response to President Bush's call to "reform" (aka "privatize") Social Security and screaming "You lie!"

Even though none of the Democratic "transgressions" that he cited ever inspired a similar rebuke, despite the fact that they occurred during a period when Shadegg's Republicans controlled the House. If any Democrats had even *looked* over the line between decorous and indecorous behavior, the punishments would have been swift and much harsher than mere "disapproval."

For what it's worth, if I was a member of the House, like Congresswoman Giffords, I'd have voted against the resolution.

Not because I'm a nice guy or a budding statesman (I'm not) and not because I support Wilson's behavior (he's a bigoted thug who should do the world a favor and slither back under whatever rock he was hatched under).

Nope, I'd have voted against the measure so that I could be as uncivil toward Wilson and his ilk as they are toward President Obama and the Democrats.

Toldja I'm not a nice guy. :)

Of course, that thinking probably isn't unique to me, and probably contributed to the passage of the resolution. Most Democratic members of the House are far more mature than I am, and realize what kind of damage that attitude would do to the remaining civility in the House.

However, if such a situation were to come to pass (you know, me in the House voting against a similar resolution), I can promise one thing.

Whenever I called someone a liar (or corrupt, or bigoted, or whatever), I'd have evidence with me and wouldn't, you know, lie when calling someone else a liar. Like Joe Wilson did. See section 246 of H.R. 3200.

Relevant phrase - "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

Tedski's take at R-Cubed here;

Later...

The coming week...

As usual, except where noted, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies, and subject to change without notice.


Well, for the first time in weeks, the U.S. Congress will be in session, and for the first time in months, the Arizona Legislature will *not* be. That sounds significant, but somehow, I'm not sure that it is.

Congress probably won't be doing much this week (in terms of "official business" anyway) and the lege has plenty of unfinished business that they should be dealing with, but won't be.

In short, not much has changed since last week. :)


...In the U.S. House, the action gets underway Tuesday afternoon. It looks to be a relatively quiet week as far as floor action goes. The agenda includes:

H.R. 324 - Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act, sponsored by Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) and cosponsored by Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8).

The posted agenda is light on issues of national interest, and that looks to be the only one of direct interest to Arizonans.

However, both behind the scenes and in front of cameras, there will be a lot of talk about health care reform.

The President is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening on the subject. I'd say I'm "waiting with bated breath" for the speech, but he seems more likely to give up on a public option when he should be throwing an elbow (more on that later.)

Congressman Harry Mitchell's (D-AZ5) responses to questions (about health care reform) posed by readers of the Arizona Republic can be found here; Congressman Jeff Flake's (R-AZ6) responses can be found here.

...The U.S. Senate looks to have an equally low-key "official business" week, with a lot of back office focus on health care reform.

...The Arizona Legislature is out of session, with no special sessions officially scheduled at this point, though given that the budget is still out-of-balance, expect one soon. Just probably not this week, as I previously expected would happen.

...The Arizona Corporation Commission has a securities and utilities meeting scheduled for Wednesday. The agenda is here. There are a couple of APS-related items and a couple of securities "cease and desist" related items, including one against JP Morgan Chase & Co. More details here.

The ACC's hearing schedule for the week is available here.

...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a light week - no regular meetings, just a Special/Executive meeting on tap for Wednesday morning. Why don't they drop the "special" moniker, since they seem to have one almost every week?

...The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will be holding a meeting of its Project ADD Water group on Wednesday and Thursday.

...The Tempe City Council has a meeting scheduled for Thursday. The agenda is here. It looks to be mostly mundane, but even that can be interesting on occasion. On *this* occasion, item A-3 includes a name that is familiar to most D17'ers.

It just goes to show that even high-flying legislative stars are subject to the drudgery of normal life in the not-so-big city. :)

...The Scottsdale City Council has a regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday. Items of interest on the agenda include consideration of the process of appointing an interim City Attorney, a new City Treasurer, possibly creating a Scottsdale City Lobbyist ordinance, and enacting some recommendations regarding the operations and oversight of City Cable 11,

They've also scheduled an executive session to "[d]iscuss and consider international or interstate negotiations with representatives of the public body regarding ongoing negotiations with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (a domestic sovereign nation) for intergovernmental agreements related to Pima Road and drainage improvements; and discuss and/or consult with the City attorney(s) for legal advice regarding the same."

That meeting is also scheduled for Tuesday. The executive session is scheduled for 4 p.m., the regular meeting is scheduled for 5.

...Not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (though CCEC has scheduled candidate workshops for September 16, October 21, November 18, and December 2. Sign up here.)

Later...

Flake's jihad against earmarks: The reality is not quite as pure as the image

Even though I've criticized AZ Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) in the past - and will continue to do so in the future - I actually have a great deal of respect for him.

While I rarely agree with him on most issues (and would never vote for him if I lived in his district), he is nothing if not consistent.

For instance, he has been calling for an House Ethics Committee investigation into the relationship between the PMA Group lobbying firm and Demcratic appropriators for months now. At one point, after his fifth or sixth "privileged resolution" was introduced in the House, I wondered where his righteous indignation and high ethical standards were during the Tom Delay mess a few years ago.

Turns out that he was one of the Republicans pressuring then-Majority Leader Tom Delay to step down.

So he gets some serious points for not being a hypocrite on ethics.

Unfortunately, he does have a record on earmarks of being, if not outright hypocritical (he doesn't seek earmarks for his own district), well, it *is* a little "gray."

He has proposed a number of anti-earmark amendments to bills this year, and the vast majority of them opposed earmarks in other states. And the ones that don't target other states' earmarks? They're general amendments.

He almost never targets AZ.

Hey, as someone who lives here, I suppose I should be a little grateful at his mercy, but as much as I love Arizona, even I don't think that all federally-funded projects here are good, while all such projects in other states are bad.

Yet Jeff Flake seems to think that the only improper expenditures of federal money occur in other states.


To whit, from the various authorization and appropriations bills (and the stimulus bill) that Congress has considered this year (note: pages linked to the word "amendments" are the Rules Committee pages listing all amendments proposed for a particular bill, not just Flake's) -

- For H.R. 3288, the Transportation and HUD appropriations act, Flake proposed 12 amendments.

He attacked projects in North Dakota, Texas, Ohio (twice), Pennsylvania (twice), New York (three times!), West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New Mexico. The closest he came to targeting an AZ earmark was one of the Pennsylvania projects he attacked. It was in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania.

- For H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations act, Flake proposed 11 amendments.

He went after projects in Georgia, Arkansas, Idaho, Minnesota, Maryland, Florida, California (twice), Pennsylvania (twice) and South Carolina.

- For Energy and Water Appropriations, he proposed 12 amendments.

He went after projects in Missouri, California (twice), Georgia, Arkansas, New York, Vermont, Nevada, District of Columbia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Minnesota.

- For H.R. 3082, Veterans Affairs and Military Construction appropriations, Flake proposed one amendment. This one would have prohibited "all of the member-requested earmarks for military construction projects." That amendment would have eliminated over 100 projects, one of which was in AZ.

- For H.R. 3081, State Department and foreign operations appropriations, Flake proposed one amendment, eliminating funding for "the one-time special educational, professional, and cultural exchange grants program."

- For H.R. 2997, Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA appropriations, Flake proposed 12 amendment, some of which were of the "MIRV" variety, attacking multiple states in one strike.

He went after projects in Pennsylvania, Idaho (twice), Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon (twice), Tennessee, West Virginia, Iowa (twice), Georgia, Washington (twice), Minnesota, Ohio, Maryland, Texas, Illinois, and Maryland,

- For H.R. 2996, Interior, Environment and related appropriations, Flake proposed 10 amendments.

He went after projects in Indiana, Minnesota (twice), New York, Alabama (twice), Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

- For H.R. 2647, the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Flake proposed two amendments. The first would have "prohibit the Defense Secretary from expending money for earmarks if (1) the recipient (or any employee, director, or PAC) contributed to a Member of Congress who sponsored the earmark or (2) any registered lobbyist (or its PAC) whose client is the recipient of the earmark contributed to the Member of Congress who sponsored the earmark" and the second would have required "the Defense Secretary to report to Congress on the competitive processes used to award earmarks listed in the joint explanatory statement for the FY2008 defense appropriations bill. If competitive processes were not employed in making such awards, the decision-making process and justifications as to why should be cited in the report."

- For H.R. 2892, Homeland Security appropriations, Flake proposed 11 amendments.

In those, he went after projects in Arizona (whoooo hoooo! Finally!!), Kentucky, New York (twice), North Carolina, Texas, California (FOUR times!), and one amendment that would have struck "all the earmarks for emergency operations centers from FEMA's State and Local Programs account."

Note: Why do I think that it may not be the brightest idea for a Republican to go after FEMA? Maybe he can campaign on this one as his "Katrina Memorial" amendment.

- For H.R. 2918, Legislative Appropriations, Flake proposed one amendment. That one would have prohibited "funds from being used to implement the House Ethics Manual provision on page 239 in the Certification of No Financial Interest in Fiscal Legislation section of Chapter Five that states "A contribution to a Member's principal campaign committee or leadership PAC generally would not constitute the type of 'financial interest' referred to in the rule." "

- For H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, Flake proposed one amendment. That one would have prevented "earmarking in a new grant program established in the bill, and would clarify that Congress presumes that grants awarded through that program will be awarded on a competitive basis, and if they are not, require the Assistant Secretary to submit a report to Congress explaining the reason."

- For H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Flake proposed seven amendments. He didn't attack specific states. Instead he went after AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak, the National Mall Revitalization Fund, "any duck pond, museum, skate park, equestrian center, dog park, ski hill, historic home, ice rink, splash playground, or speaker system", and energy efficient federal buildings.


So in 81 amendments that Jeff Flake has proposed to authorization and approps bills (and ARRA), Flake has gone after one AZ earmark directly (regarding solar power of all things. I mean, it's totally foolish to invest money on solar power projects in Arizona, right? BTW - that's sarcasm folks :) ) and one, a fire station, that was included on a long hit list of military construction projects.

I'm sure that at least a few of the earmarks that he targeted are ones that most reasonable people would consider to be wasteful, However, his nearly-unswerving aim at targets outside of AZ, a state that owes a huge amount of credit for its growth to federal infrastructure spending, gives lie to the purity of his motives.

He may be touted as a "limited government spending", Libertarian-leaning Republican, but it seems that he only wants to limit government spending in other parts of the country.

Perhaps so that more money is available for Arizona. Not that he'll ask for any. He leaves that sort of petty "looking out for his state and district" stuff to mere mortals.

Like Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Ed Pastor, and Raul Grijalva, the Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation.

Congressman Harry Mitchell on Health Care Reform

Courtesy an email sent today -

Dear [cpmaz],

As you may be aware, Congress has begun to debate health insurance reform and may have a vote on a reform bill as early as the end of July. Currently, there is a bill being processed in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, and there are two bills making their way through the U.S. Senate. While I continue to review these proposals, you, too, can read these bills in their current forms here.

As I meet with people throughout the district, it seems that everyone has a personal story about health care. Like most Americans, I believe that rising costs and the threat of losing coverage is cause for great concern. There are too many examples of folks being denied the care their doctor prescribes because their insurance company says no, or of businesses being unable to create more jobs because the cost of health insurance will bust their budget, or of parents who cannot afford to pay for routine medical treatment to keep themselves and their children healthy.

Those conversations, along with recommendations received from doctors, nurses, patients, and health care providers in Arizona have convinced me that our system needs reform. In fact, since 2000, health care premiums have more than doubled and small businesses have faced a 129 percent increase in health care costs.

Let me be clear, I believe reform needs to protect what works and fix what doesn't. Reform should not only improve access to affordable and quality care for all Americans, but it also needs to preserve individual choice and protect competition in the marketplace. Reform should not leave individuals with fewer options, should not add to the national deficit, and should not leave doctors with inconsistent and low reimbursement rates as is often the case with Medicare.

While content of H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Choices Act, continues to be amended in committee, I will be reviewing and monitoring changes before I decide whether I will support this legislation. However, there are important benchmarks that should be met in order to gain my support:

• Choice: Reform must preserve patient choice. You should be able to choose your own coverage and doctors. If you like them you should be able to keep them, even if you change or lose your job or move to a new state. And you should be free to change coverage as you see fit.

• Competition: Reform should encourage competition and should not leave individuals with fewer options. In its current form, H.R. 3200 contains a public alternative that is funded at the same rate of Medicare which is troubling for patients, doctors, and hospitals alike. For example, in 2008, Scottsdale Healthcare lost $56 million in Medicare underpayments. While a public alternative, if designed carefully and properly, may help increase competition, one that reimburses according to Medicare rates could undercut private plans, weaken the financial stability of local hospitals and potentially leave individuals with fewer options.

• Small business: Reform must not overburden small businesses that create jobs that are essential in jump starting Arizona’s economy. According to The Arizona Republic, while small businesses make up 73 percent of Arizona businesses, only 32 percent of Arizona small businesses provided health coverage benefits in 2006, down from 50 percent in 2000. Health care reform should not exacerbate the problems small businesses are currently facing.

• Affordability, wellness, technology and best practices: Reform should ensure that our health care system is affordable and covers pre-existing conditions. To ensure the highest quality of care for all Americans, reform should reward healthy lifestyles and personal responsibility, and take full advantage of technological advances and best practices that will help reduce costs for doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.

Finally, I also believe that in the long term reform should not add to the national deficit. I believe that much of the cost of instituting reform should come from savings within the current system, by eliminating waste and inefficiencies, yet there may likely be the need find additional revenue sources to pay for it. As a member of Congress with a strong record of opposing tax increases, I will closely watch the debate on paying for reform.

As the debate in Congress continues, I value your input and ideas. I encourage you to visit my healthcare resource page on my website to receive more information about the health care reform process and invite you to contact my office to share your story and opinion.

Sincerely,

Harry

Let me translate this into English -

Those of you reading this who support health care reform should contact Harry and let him know (politely) that you support a public option in any health care reform package, and urge him to support it too.


And for those of you who live in other CDs -

CD1 - Ann Kirkpatrick's contact page is here; she can use the encouragement too.

CD2 - Trent Franks' page is here; I don't expect it to help, but why not let him know that there are more than Kool Aid drinkers in his district?

CD3 - John Shadegg's page is here; ditto.

CD4 - Ed Pastor's contact page is here; I expect him to support a decent bill if one makes it to the floor, but I'm sure a "Thank You, Congressman Pastor" would be appreciated.

CD6 - Jeff Flake's contact page is here; Franks or Shadegg are more likely to vote for health care reform than Flake (and there isn't a snowball's chance in Phoenix of either of them voting for it), but whatthehell...

CD7 - Raul Grijalva's contact page is here; like Pastor, he is probably going to vote for it when it reaches the House floor, but a word of thanks would be appreciated.

CD8 - Gabrielle Giffords' contact page is here; as with Ann Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell, she can probably use a little encouragement.

Later...

AZ U.S. House members' budgets

Info courtesy Politico.

The linked article is dated June 19, so for the sake of easy math, I'm assuming the numbers are current as of June 15. The presumption is that the amount spent represents the amount spent through 5.5 months of a 12-month year, 0r 45.83% of the year.

That might not be perfectly accurate (I don't know for sure what Politico's cut-off date was), but since everyone is subject to the same assumption, it works for comparison's sake.

Representative
2009 Allotment ($)
Total Spent ($)
% of budget spent

Jeff Flake (R-AZ6.)
1,559,332.00
301,492.87
19.33%

Trent Franks (R-AZ2)
1,604,247.00
278,691.39
17.37%

Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8)
1,527,622.00
270,642.79
17.72%

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7)
1,508,218.00
276,943.30
18.36%

Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1)
1,515,010.00
135,196.04
8.92%

Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5)
1,515,410.00
264,989.60
17.49%

Ed Pastor (D-AZ4)
1,483,786.00
268,599.51
18.1%

John Shadegg (R-AZ3)
1,512,691.00
298,370.28
19.72%

Other than a few outliers (like Kirkpatrick's <9%), the AZ delegation and Congress as a whole is pretty consistent. At nearly the halfway point of the year, most House members have spent 17 - 21% of their budgets, leading me to believe that either -

1. Some of their bigger expenses are yet to come; or

2. Their office budgets are incredibly inflated, perhaps so that members can generate good press in December with press releases touting their frugality as evidenced by how much money they are returning at the end of the year.

Jeff Flake doesn't think that AZ is getting its fair share of federal spending...

...Perhaps somebody should tell him that the situation might be more equitable if our entire Congressional delegation, instead of just the Democrats, worked to represent Arizona.

Or perhaps he'd find the situation more equitable if only he'd pay more attention to Arizona reality instead of his personal ideology.

Over the last few months, AZ Congressman Jeff Flake, when not proposing anti-earmark amendments or calling for investigations of his Democratic colleagues, has been co-authoring (with a member of the Heritage Foundation) a number* of op-ed pieces on the topic of "donor states" and federal highway funds. "Donor states" are states that pay more in federal gas taxes than they receive back in federal highway funds.

* = "number" is a misnomer here. Actually, it's only one article used as a template, with the numbers and names changed to adapt to the locale of the piece's publication - Texas here, Georgia here, Florida here, Arizona here.

Flake and his co-author argue that the solution to this perceived inequity is to remove federal bureaucracy from the federal interstate highway system. He wants to keep the federal fuel tax in place, but all of the revenues collected in a particular state would stay in that state, to be administered by that state's own transportation department.

Just a reminder, the Arizona Legislature sets the budget and the priorities for the Arizona Department of Transportation. For the sake of brevity, we'll leave for another day the discussion of the utter foolishness of the idea of letting the AZ legislature control the upkeep of the federal highways in AZ. Let's just say that relying on the AZ lege to make sure AZ's interstate (and intrastate) roads are well-maintained and safe isn't a terribly bright idea.

While Flake's idea is more subtle than Texas Governor Rick Perry's call for Texas' secession from the United States, it may be even more indicative of the current wave of Randian selfishness and divisiveness that constitutes conservative political discourse. Here, instead of outright political secession, they're advocating ideological, economic, and social secession.

It's no coincidence that the states that they're targeting with this message are states that are either Republican-leaning already or are states that the Reps hope to reclaim in 2010 and 2012. Or that the states that they criticize by name - Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York - are pretty solidly Blue.

They're appealing to the "Us vs. Them" mentality that percolates just under the surface of all of us (yes, even me :) ), they're ignoring the fact (and hoping that readers similarly ignore) that the interstate highway benefits everybody, and everybody benefits from the funds expended on interstate highways.

Simply put, federal money spent on highways in New York benefits drivers from Arizona, just as money spent in AZ benefits drivers from New York.

And while the conservatives/Republicans have been crying about America's "descent into socialism," they're using the incorrect word.


The proper word is "society."


It should be noted that while Flake's articles have been appearing for just a few months, his scheme has been percolating for a while, as witnessed by the proposed (but stalled) Senate Concurrent Memorial advocating the precisely the same idea, sponsored by Ron Gould at the start of this year's AZ lege session. Gould pushed this last year, too.

It should also be noted that Flake and his compatriot are being very selective in their use of statistics. A study from the non-partisan Tax Foundation, ranks Arizona as 21st in terms of federal spending received vs. federal taxes paid ($1.19 received for every $1.00 paid in 2005).

That overall picture, no matter how much more accurate its evaluation of AZ's economic benefit from federal spending, is far less ideologically convenient for Flake than the numbers associated with highway spending alone. Hence, he ignores it.

Later...

Shadegg and Flake can't *both* change their names to "Scrooge", can they?

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 442, a resolution "[r]ecognizing the importance of the Child and Adult Care Food Program and its positive effect on the lives of low income children and families."

The bill passed by a vote of 377 - 10.

Now this resolution has absolutely no practical effect on the laws of the country or federal spending. In fact, it was such an innocuous and non-controversial bill that even Trent Franks (R-AZ2) could find it in his heart to support it.

Trent Franks!!!

However, Franks was alone among the AZGOPers - Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) and John Shadegg (R-AZ3) voted against this resolution. Apparently, the hardcore ideologues are so opposed to any government social programs that benefit low income Americans that they won't even vote to acknowledge the success or even the necessity of one of those programs.

I sort of understand Flake's perspective - he hates everything. But what's up with Shadegg? He's enough of a politician to occasionally vote for bills that are of the "feel good but meaningless” variety.

Perhaps Shadegg is trying to get back in the good graces of the conservative wing of the GOP after his bout of honesty last week.

Later...