The week ahead...

Note: all info culled from online sources and subject to change without notice as events unfold. Check the appropriate organization's website for updates.

...In the U.S. House, the agenda looks to be a busy and somewhat contentious one.

- H.R. 1388, the "GIVE" Act, has passed the Senate with amendments. Those amendments are coming up for House approval. That will give the Three Amigos from AZ (Shadegg, Flake, and Franks), as well as the GOP caucus as a whole, another opportunity to vote against public service and volunteerism.

- Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick's (D-AZ1) H.R. 1513, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2009, will be heard as a suspension bill (2/3 support required to pass).

- Rep. Jeff Flake is bringing forward his sixth privileged motion "raising a question of privileges of the House. " The text isn't available online, it is probably related his call for both FBI/DOJ and ethics investigations into the campaign contributions made by PMA, a lobbying firm, and their relation to earmarks.

- H.R. 985, the Free Flow of Information Act. This one came up last year and passed the House, but later died in the Senate.

As with last year's version, this bill creates a federal journalists' shield law.

Also as with last year's version, this bill specifically provides coverage for corporate media personnel and specifically excludes bloggers and other citizen journalists.

It'll pass, but it's still inadequate.

- H.Res. 279, "Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress." It provides over $300 million for House committee operations. Call this one the "Peacock Act" in honor of all the preening and posturing that will be associated with this one.

- H.R. 1664, "To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards." Sounds good, until you read the fine print - the Secretary of the Treasury decides what is "unreasonable and excessive." It'll pass the House but face serious hurdles in the Senate.

- And in what is sure to be the most contentious of all, the House will be considering the "Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2010." Whatever final form the bill takes after a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday, the Republicans and most of the Blue Dog Dems (including AZ5's Harry Mitchell) will probably oppose the measure.


...Back here in the AZ Legislature, it will be a mostly quiet week on the committee front, as only the House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet. On the Senate side, a few committees will meet, but only to consider executive appointments and to hear about the parts of the federal stimulus package that fall into their bailiwicks.

The House COW (Committee Of the Whole) calendars (here and here) offer up a couple of interesting nuggets.

HB2352 exempts Class II Injection Wells from the Aquifer Protection Permit requirement. From the "fact sheet" for the bill -

"Injection wells discharge liquid byproducts in deep, underground porous rock. Class II wells inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production. The majority of the liquid that is released is a salt water (brine) solution. In order to prevent contamination, class II wells inject brine deep underground."

An APP permit is required when "one owns or operates a facility that releases pollutants directly into an aquifer, onto the land surface, or in between an aquifer and the land. Currently, injection wells are considered a polluting facility, along with ten other facility types."

In committee, every Republican supported increasing contamination in our drinking water, and every Dem opposed it.

Expect the same trend in the COW session.

Another interesting bill could be HB2101, a measure to require that counties with a population of greater than 175,000 residents have five member boards of supervisors. The current threshold is 200,000. As it turns out, it only affects Pinal County, which under the current law would be converting to a five-member board in 2012 anyway. The county supervisors association opposed it, too, because of the increased costs to the county during a time when all budgets are tight. There are also some questions about whether or not the USDOJ would approve any new districts (that darn Voting Rights Act! :) ).

Again, in committee, all Dems opposed it and all Reps favored it.

Again, expect the same in COW.

The highlight of the week in the AZ lege, though, could be the Democrats' unveiling of their budget proposal on Monday at 10:30 a.m. That one is sure to set up some cross-chatter/smack-talk between the two caucuses. Once the Reps "official" release theirs (which looks to be so harsh that they may have trouble getting it past some of the more vulnerable members of their caucus), the mutual criticism society will start in earnest.


...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will be meeting twice this week.

At Monday's "Informal" meeting (10:00 a.m., Supervisors' Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson in Phoenix), the highlights include more budget balancing moves and an executive session, possibly to discuss the latest source of antagonism between them and the Maricopa County Attorney.

The agenda for Wednesday's meeting (9 a.m., Supervisors' Auditorium) is more mundane, yet still highlights the ongoing feud between the supes and the County Attorney and Sheriff.

One item (#16) covers the executive compensation package for Wade Swanson, the newly-hired director of the County's General Litigation Department. You know, the civil litigation duties taken away from Andrew Thomas.

AZRep coverage of the issue here.


...Anyway, those look to be some of the highlights of the upcoming week, though stuff could crop up out of the blue, like when Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's anti-immigrant jihad is making Maricopa County look like Selma, Alabama in the 1950s.

Arizona's Congressional delegation and the stimulus bill...

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a compromise version of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The final vote was 246-183, with one answering 'present.' All House Republicans voted against the bill, and all but seven Democrats voted for the bill. All of AZ's Democratic representatives voted for it.

Later on Friday over in the Senate, the same compromise version was passed by a 60 - 38 vote. All Democrats present voted for the bill (Ted Kennedy was out, and Al Franken hasn't been seated yet), as well as Republicans Olympia Snow, Susan Collins (both from Maine) and Arlen Specter (PA). Both of AZ's Republican senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, voted against the economic stimulus package.

AZ's delegation on the stimulus bill, in their own words (from news coverage, press releases, and the Congressional Record) -

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-CD5), from a press release, courtesy Arizona Congress Watch - “Arizona’s job losses last year were worse than every other state but one. People are facing foreclosure and struggling to make ends meet,” said Mitchell. “The risk of inaction is too great. This bill will create and maintain jobs and we must take this step to get people back to work and get the economy back on track.”

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-CD7), from a press release - “I voted to support today’s Recovery Act, a bill that is far from perfect, but opens up possibilities for many...The State of Arizona is in a budget crisis that it is translating to cuts in the Department of Economic Security, slashed departments at our public universities and colleges, money taken from our children in elementary, junior high, and high schools, and increases in hunger, poverty, and the ranks of the uninsured. The Recovery Act will help stop this kind of hemorrhaging, which is why I support it."

Rep. John Shadegg (R-CD3), from a press release -

"But one of the bill’s worst provisions has gone almost unnoticed, dangerously lurking below the radar of those exposing the bill’s flaws.

“Comparative Effectiveness Research,” sounds innocuous, but big-government programs always do. The $1.1 billion of the stimulus package earmarked for this project is a significant step toward government-run healthcare

Shadegg from a post in The Hill's CongressBlog, titled "Friday The 13th Horror" - "But of course the greatest horror is not the process – it is the product. At the end of the day we have an economic stimulus without economic stimulus."

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8), as quoted in the Arizona Daily Star - 'The legislation will create or save 3.5 million jobs nationally over the next two years. Approximately 70,000 of those jobs will be in Arizona," she said in a press statement.'

The same article goes on to list a series of informational forums that Giffords will be part of, including one on Tuesday at ASU from noon - 1:30 p.m with CD5's Representative Harry Mitchell. (Pima Room in the Memorial Union)

More info on the forums, courtesy Congresswoman Giffords' website here.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6), from the Congressional Record - "We know enough about this legislation to know that it is bad legislation. First and foremost, the process is bad, but it’s bad legislation...I doubt that John Maynard Keynes would believe that $50 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts would be stimulative. All that it stimulates is more spending later."

Sen. Jon Kyl (R), from the Congressional Record - ...His speech is too long to find one good quote, so I recommend reading it in its entirety at the link. He opposed the bill for a litany of reasons, including ACORN, Filipino veterans, a maglev rail line from L.A. to Las Vegas, money for small shipyards (and not enough $ for big shipyards), and the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage).

Sen. John McCain (R), was quoted as calling the bill "generational theft" on CNN and elsewhere. (NY Times)

President Obama is expected to sign the bill on Tuesday in Denver, and will be in Phoenix on Wednesday to announce a plan to fight home foreclosures. Details as they become available.

Note: In the future, I expect to leave this sort of post to Stacy at AZ Congress Watch - it took longer just to set up the links than to write the rest of the post.

Here comes the stimulus package...

Edit later on 1/27 to add the results of Tuesday's House Rules Committee hearing...

I am *such* a geek sometimes.

As I type this, the House is debating H. Res. 88. the resolution governing the rules of debate for H. R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Being somewhat bored with the debate points that are meeting stereotypical expectations ("the economy sucks, government action is needed" vs. "the economy sucks, the free market and tax cuts for corporations will cure all"), I decided to check out some of the amendments proposed for H. R. 1.

I don't have time to go into all of them (over 200 were submitted!), but here are the AZ delegation highlights -

From the ever-reliable CD6 Republican Jeff Flake ('ever-reliable' = consistently opposes pretty near everything that might benefit average citizens) -

Amendment 128, "Would indicate that Members shall not influence discretionary funding by agencies or state and local officials on behalf of campaign contributors."

That actually sounded almost reasonable, until I read the actual text of his proposal.

From the .pdf linked above -

Members of Congress shall not provide executive agencies or State and local officials with recommendations, either directly or indirectly, concerning agency decisions to commit, obligate, or expend funds made available pursuant to this Act for a specific project on behalf of a potential funding recipient that is associated with a contribution to a Member's principal campaign committee or leadership political action committee.

Ummm...that language is broad enough to bar Congressfolk from talking to other government agencies and officials about projects that benefit Americans because some of those who benefit may have given to one or another campaign. For instance, I can personally testify to the fact that at least one contributor to Harry Mitchell's campaigns has utilized the light rail system in Tempe and Phoenix.

Would that fact then bar Congressman Mitchell (and his staffers) from discussing the allocation and use of some stimulus money with Valley Metro and local and county officials? That lack of communication would make for a lousy planning process.

Now, I admit that I'm not a lawyer and may be reading too much into this, but Jeff Flake has consistently opposed the idea of the public benefitting from the expenditure of public funds.

Just something to keep in mind if Flake decides to make official his long-rumored interest in the AZ governor's office.

Other Flake amendment highlights (with my comments) -

#129 would "prohibit funds from being used for any duck pond, museum, skate park, equestrian center, dog park, ski hill, historic home, ice rink, splash playground, or speaker system" (even I don't think that stuff belongs in an emergency stimulus package),

#130 would "strike funding in the bill for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts" (Flake is consistent - he goes after anything resembling arts funding whenever an opportunity presents itself),

#131 would "strike $6 billion in funding for construction, alteration or repair of federal buildings to improve energy efficiency and conservation" (why is the "fiscal hawk" Flake opposing short term spending with long-term benefits??),

#132 would "strike funding for Amtrak" (sacrifice the already woefully inadequate support for public transit? Go after something that benefits non-corporate-jet-owning Americans? Classic Flake...),

#133 would "strike funding for the National Mall Revitalization Fund" (there's a reason that the Reps have latched onto this one as they attack the stimulus package - it's a waste of money. How does giving Congressfolk a prettier walk to work help the country as a whole?),

#134 would "strike funding for Americorps" (Cutting Americorps, an organization that fights illiteracy, helps build affordable housing, cleans parks and streams, provides disaster relief, and more? Maybe Flake would leave it alone if it agreed to help build opulent office buildings or set up training programs for minimum wage janitorial jobs.)

Jeff Flake was not the only member of the AZ delegation to submit an amendment for consideration.

Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) submitted #167, which would "extend the eligibility through 2012 of Section 1011(a)(1) of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003." In English, this would extend federal reimbursement of emergency health services provided to undocumented aliens. (A decent idea that would help keep many AZ hospitals solvent, but I'm not sure that it's stimulus package-worthy) and #75, which would "revise the grant program for eligible renewable energy property so that projects would be eligible for grants based on when they commence construction, rather than when they are placed in service" (not quite sure what this one does, other than to possibly get some reimbursement funds back into circulation quickly.)

Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) submitted #96, which would "increase Workforce Investment Act funding from $4 billion to $4.1 billion; increase funding for youth literacy under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by $500 million; and provide $250 million for the Adult Education State Grants under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act" (while this isn't the infrastructure spending that I tend to prefer, it is spending "now" that has long-term benefits.)

Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) submitted #60 which would "make current capital gains and estate tax cuts permanent" (OK, Harry and I disagree on this one, but more importantly, it seems unlikely that Congress will approve a measure that almost exclusively benefits the wealthiest 1% of Americans when the working and middle classes in this country are suffering so much) and #61, which would "prevent the automatic pay adjustment for Members of Congress from going into effect in 2010" (a great idea that probably wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of passing as a stand-alone measure. It may have a chance here though.)

Note: Mitchell's press release on the anti-pay raise amendment is here.

Now there's no guarantee that all or even any of these or the other proposed amendments to H.R. 1 will be considered by the full House. The House's Rules Committee will meet in less than an hour (3:30 p.m. Eastern, 1:30 p.m. AZ time) to determine which amendments will be in order.

BTW - looking at the amendments and the underlying bill, there's a *lot* of pork attached to this bill that doesn't seem to be "stimulating", and before you ask, it's from both parties.

It would be nice if these folks could focus on the task at hand; "business as usual" (as much as that itself should be changed) can wait until after the heavy lifting of addressing the economic crisis is done.

...In other Mitchell-related news, The Arizona Guardian reports that Seth Scott, Harry Mitchell's spokesman since his first run for Congress, is moving on and will announce his future plans shortly.

I've known Seth since 2006 when I first walked in to the Mitchell campaign office to volunteer. His intelligence, friendliness and calm perspective will be missed, and I wish him well (and expect him to *do* well) in his future career wherever that may take him.

Later!

Edit to add -

Well, I was right - most of the proposed amendments weren't found to be in order (only 11 out of over 200 were so found, in fact). The only AZ delegation submittal that will receive floor consideration was Flake's anti-Amtrak one.

A number of the other amendments were simply added to the bill by the Rules Committee, including Flake's move to strike funding for the National Mall Revitalization Fund.

Expect a Flake press release touting that one. :)

I'm pretty sure (though not absolutely sure, given the disregard for public and mass transit by the bill's authors) that Flake's anti-Amtrak amendment won't pass, but the underlying bill will pass. The only question will be how many Dem members representing Rep-leaning districts will be released by the Majority Whip to vote against the measure.

End edit...

Arizona's week in Congress...

Just passed and upcoming...


In floor votes -

- The House passed H. J. Res. 3, " Relating to the disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" by a vote of 270 - 155. Among Arizona's delegation, Flake, Franks, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Shadegg voted yes, Grijalva, Giffords, and Pastor voted no. (According to the CRS summary for the proposal, the resolution "Declares that Congress disapproves the obligation of any funds that exceed specified amounts authorized for the purchase of troubled assets by the Secretary of the Treasury under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.")

- The House passed H.R. 58, "Commending the University of Florida Gators for winning the Bowl Championship Series National Championship Game." Normally this sort of motion is passed by voice vote or unanimously, but for this one, five Congressmen, including AZ's Jeff Flake, voted against it.

- The House passed H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009, by a vote of 260 - 166. AZ delegation: Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in favor; Flake, Franks, Kirkpatrick, and Shadegg opposed.

...In an almost unheard-of development, a Jeff Flake-sponsored amendment was actually added to H.R. 384, by voice vote of all things. The amendment clarified "that the TARP Special Inspector General has oversight power over any actions taken by Treasury under this legislation that he deems appropriate, with certain exceptions."


Floor speeches -

- Jeff Flake spoke in favor of H.J.Res. 3 and in favor of his amendment to H.R. 384 (yes, he later voted against the underlying bill, but let's not quibble - Jeff Flake got an amendment passed!

- Trent Franks was one of a number of Republican Congressmen who took 40 minutes of floor time to reminsce about the recently ended presidential administration of George W. Bush.

-Raul Grijalva participated in a "special order" speech on the Congressional Progressive Caucus.


Sponsorships -

- Jeff Flake (R-CD6) sponsored H.R. 640 ( To require the President to transmit to Congress a report on every program of the Federal Government that authorizes or requires the gathering of information on United States persons in the United States, established whether in whole or in part pursuant to the "all necessary and appropriate force" clause contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) ), H.R. 641 (To limit the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land located in a State in which 25 percent or more of all land in the State is already owned by the United States, aka the No Net Loss of Private Land Act) and H.R. 642 (To provide opportunities for continued recreational shooting on certain Federal public land, aka the Recreational Shooting Protection Act ).

- Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) sponsored H.R. 662 (To evaluate and extend the basic pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation and to ensure the protection of Social Security beneficiaries, aka Employee Verification Amendment Act of 2009).

- Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) sponsored H.R. 644 (To withdraw the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity of Kanab Creek and in House Rock Valley from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, aka the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2009).


Upcoming week - The highlights of the coming week are the Senate version of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, S. 181, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The last vote is expected on Wednesday due to the Republican Issues Conference on Thursday and Friday. There will also be votes on creating a "National Data Privacy Day" and "Honoring the heroic actions of the pilot, crew, and rescuers of US Airways Flight 1549" (aka - The Hudson River landing folks).


Stacy at AZ Congress Watch has been doing great work on the Congresscritters' press releases/media coverage, and those who want issue-specific quotes should check it out.

Later!

Arizona's week in the House in review

...Stacy over at AZ Congress Watch does a good job of keeping up with this stuff (though not this week :) ). This is just a summary.

This upcoming week will be a fairly short one, with the first half of the week being taken up with Inauguration activities and the MLK holiday and with the expectation that the House will finish its legislative business by Thursday evening.

Last week, however, had some activity of note -

Over in the House, work started on H.R. 384, a bill to reform the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). A number of amendments were heard (some passed, some didn't), and more are scheduled for this coming week. The highlight for AZ'ers in that area is a proposal by Jeff Flake (R-CD6) to expand the powers of the TARP's Special Inspector General.

That one is expected to be heard on Wednesday or Thursday.

In other business, the House passed H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 by a vote of 289 - 139. The AZ delegation voted along party lines - Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor in favor; Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg against.


Bill sponsorships...

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) sponsored three bills - H.R. 551 (study of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed), H.R. 552 (to designate the Arizona National Scenic Trail), and H.R. 576 (a refundable investment credit, and 5-year depreciation, for property used to manufacture solar energy property). The text of the bills aren't available online yet.

Congressman Harry Mitchell sponsored H.R. 498, a bill to make permanent some capital gains and estate tax cuts.


Floor speech action...

...Giffords urged her colleagues to vote 'yes' in a 'one-minute' speech in support of H.R. 2. Her press release on the bill is here.

...During debate on H.R. 2, Congressman John Shadegg (R-CD3) spoke against passage of the bill.

...Mitchell also gave a 'one-minute' on H.R. 156, his bill to block Congress' automatic pay raise.


"Extensions of Remarks" (statements submitted for the record)...

...Mitchell gave his reasons for sponsoring H.R. 498, a bill to make permanent recent cap gains and estate tax cuts.

...Mitchell also lauded Dave Graybill and the Pink Heals Tour, an organization dedicated to raising breast cancer awareness.


Press releases (all from House websites)...

...Jeff Flake highlighted his "egregious earmark of the week" here and his bill to deport illegal immigrants convicted of DUI here.

...Trent Franks' (R-CD2) press secretary was prolific this week, producing releases on Franks' vote against H.R. 2, criticizing the New York Times' article blowing the whistle on some U.S. efforts against Iran and Israeli requests for specialized weapons to use against Iran, and commemorating the fourth anniversary of a peace agreement in Sudan.

...Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) expressed his support of the SCHIP renewal bill.

...Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD1) may have had some press releases this week, but as a freshman Member of Congress, her House website is going to suck until spring. Possibly late spring.

Arizona's week in Congress

This past Tuesday, the 111th session of the United States Congress began with much of the normal procedural routine that occurs at the beginning of every session. Additionally, there were a few measures that passed that were definite slaps at the outgoing Bush administration.

And all in all, the votes of the AZ delegation broke along strictly partisan lines.

On Tuesday, the House convened and the first order of business was selection of the Speaker. As expected, incumbent Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) easily defeated Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), 255 - 174. (AZ: Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted for Pelosi; Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg voted for Boehner) After that, the House debated and approved H. Res. 5, its rules for the new session by a vote of 242 - 181 (with Ed Pastor, of all people, crossing over to vote with the Republicans. Otherwise, the AZ delegation followed party lines - Democrats for, Republicans against.

On Wednesday, the House approved two "open government" measures related to Presidental records and Presidential libraries.

H.R. 35, an act that would override a Bush administration executive order that basically allowed former Presidents or their family members to stop the release of any Presidential records that they saw fit. It passed 359 - 58, with all of AZ's Democrats supporting the measure and all of AZ's Republicans opposing it.

H.R. 36, an act to require disclosure of info about contributors to Presidential library organizations. It passed 388 - 31, again with all of the Democrats in the AZ delegation supporting it and all of the Republicans opposing it.

On Thursday, there was a joint session of Congress with no votes cast, but it may have been the most important meeting of the session - it accepted the results of the Electoral College balloting that officially means that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

Whoooo hoooo!!!

:)

Anyway, back to the boring stuff...

On Friday, the House started on actual legislative business.

It considered and passed H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act by a vote of 256 - 163. Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in favor; Flake and Franks against; Shadegg not voting.

It also considered and passed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, by a vote of 247 - 171. As with H.R. 12, Giffords, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in favor; Flake and Franks against; Shadegg not voting.

Congressman Grijalva gave a floor speech on H.R. 11, available here.

Lastly, the House considered and passed H. Res. 34, a resolution "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." The resolution passed 390 - 5, with 22 answering 'present'. Among AZ's delegation, Flake, Franks, Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Pastor voted in support, Grijalva was 'present', and Shadegg was still absent. Flake, Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Shadegg are all cosponsors of H. Res. 34.

Congressman Mitchell submitted a statement for the record (called "Extensions of Remarks) on H. Res. 34, available here.

Congressman Franks gave a special order speech on the subject, available here.

Ummm...Harry Mitchell's statement was brief, positive, and reasonable (in a word: "statesman-like"); Trent Franks' was, well...not. In fact, it seemed to be as much 'anti-Muslim' as it was 'pro-Israel.'

In other Mitchell news, he sponsored H.R. 156, a bill to block Congress' automatic pay increase and submitted a statement regarding it to the Congressional Record, available here. The text of the measure isn't available online yet, though the list of cosponsors is: Flake, Giffords, and Kirkpatrick from Arizona are among those cosponsors.

In light of the cratering economy and skyrocketing unemployment, most people from across the political spectrum think that this is a brilliant idea, and that Congress should make at least a symbolic statement of standing with and supporting those Americans who are suffering from the effects of the economy. What remains to be seen is if a majority of Congress feels the same way.

Don't bet on it.

The Senate was fairly quiet - it had no recorded votes.

The House reconvenes on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. (D.C. time)

Later...

Letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell

This one is rooted in the previous post, but while that was more of a rant, this one is more reasoned.

At least, I hope it comes across that way. :)

The contents of the letter that I just submitted to Congressman Harry Mitchell via his House website's contact form -

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

In the coming weeks and months, there will be much discussion (and some passage) by Congress of efforts to stabilize and stimulate America's economy.

Many of these efforts will include money for various infrastructure projects across the country.

I am writing today to ask you to work to minimize the portion of those funds that will be subject to whims of state legislators.

In our home state of Arizona, leaders in the legislature have already started to stated their intent to cut to the bone public services like education while pledging to set aside funds for activities they favor such as widespread roundups of immigrants. (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/133701)

In a year when municipal, county, and agency revenue has plummeted and budgets have busted, funds that are targeted for projects such as public transit, rural broadband connectivity, alternative energy, schools, etc., shouldn't be subject to siphoning by irresponsible state legislators who are less interested in serving the public than in advancing their personal ideologies.

Please urge your colleagues, including all of the other members of Arizona's Congressional delegation, to pass stimulus packages that either send funds directly to the targeted end recipients or send the funds to the states but with serious strings attached to ensure that the funds are used properly.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

While the Rep members of AZ's delegation (Flake, Franks, Shadegg) are sure to oppose any stimulus packages, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to oppose the packages (which are all but certain to pass) while working to ensure that any funds disbursed have the safeguards mentioned in my letter. As such, I recommend that everyone - Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and more - to contact their Congressional representatives and urge them to work to ensure that any funds disbursed end up where they are supposed to.

Our Congressfolks and their contact pages -

Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) - contact (no direct contact page)
Trent Franks (R-AZ2) - contact (no direct contact page)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) - contact page
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) - contact (no direct contact page)
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1) - contact page
Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) - contact (no direct contact page)
John Shadegg (R-AZ3) - contact form

Note: the four without a direct contact page utilize a zip code verification process to ensure that the online contact system is utilized by their constituents only. Follow the directions on their websites to contact them.

Note2: In a development that signifies how important I believe this issue is, I have linked to the Republicans' actual House websites, not their crAZyspace pages. You should be impressed. :)


Later!

Best and worst bargains - 2008 elections

Edit on 12/8 to update County numbers, below...

Post-General Election campaign finance reports are in, and normally this would be the time to do a really geeky and dry post listing figures for contributions, expenditures, cash on hand, etc. However, since the election results are in, I'm going to do something a little different.

Still geeky and dry, but different. :))

Today's post will list the best bargains (based on lowest expenditures per vote for election victors) and the worst bargains (based on highest expenditures per vote for election losers.)

The expenditure figures taken from the cycle-to-date boxes of the campaigns' post-general reports; vote totals taken from the appropriate reporting authority, either the AZ Secretary of State or the Maricopa County Recorder.

Best Bargain - AZ Congressional races

Republican Trent Franks was easily the leader here, spending $400,019.59 to receive 200,914 votes, or $1.99/vote. Republican Jeff Flake was the second most frugal victor, spending $3.76/vote. By contrast, the victor who spent the *most* per vote was another Republican, John Shadegg. Shadegg spent $17.85/vote ($2,656,692.67 spent, 200914 votes received).

Worst Bargain - AZ Congressional races

Democrat Bob Lord, Shadegg's opponent in CD3, "won" this dubious distinction, spending $1,745,210.41 to receive 115,759 votes, for a $17.85/vote pace. The only losing candidate who spent at a pace that was even close to Lord's was Republican Tim Bee. Bee spent 13.25/vote in his failed campaign to unseat Gabrielle Giffords in CD8.

Giffords and Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) each spent more than $15/vote, but since they won their races (rather handily at that), the money spent was a good deal.

Note: Challengers Don Karg (R-CD4), Rebecca Schneider (D-CD6), and Joe Sweeney (R-CD7 [I think]) haven't filed post-general reports that I could find, but I doubt that any of them spent enough money to challenge Lord for the 'Worst Bargain' status.


The comparison of county campaigns was more difficult, because both major candidates for county attorney, Andrew Thomas and Tim Nelson, as well as supervisor candidates Fulton Brock, Joel Sinclaire, and Max Wilson haven't filed post-general reports yet. (Note: with Joel Sinclaire's passing, his committee has been suspended/terminated. I'm not sure if/when a final campaign finance report will be filed.)

Brock, Thomas, Nelson, and Wilson all have reports up on the County Recorder's website, and according to the time/date stamps on the forms, all reports were submitted on time.

However, I don't want it to be said that I'm not able to form conclusions based on incomplete information. :)))

Best Bargain - Maricopa County races

Right now, Don Stapley is the clear winner in this category, but that could change once his legal expenses are added in. At this point, however, the Republican incumbent spent $9933.45 to receive 164,381 votes, or $0.29/vote to retain his seat in SD2.

Note: Stapley was a little creative in filling out his report, neglecting to fill out the "cycle-to-date" column. The expenditure number listed in this post is a total of the "cycle-to-date" number from his pre-general report and the "current period" number from his post-general report.

Worst Bargain - Maricopa County races

Ed Hermes, the Democratic candidate in Supervisor District 1, "led" this category, spending $112,026.14 to garner 119,971 votes, for a $0.93/vote pace. While for the purposes of this post, this campaign qualifies as the "worst" bargain among the county races, I expect Ed to take the lessons of this cycle and apply them to another campaign, one that he may very well win.

Tim Nelson challenged for this one, spending over $438K in his unsuccessful campaign for County Attorney. However, while he spent nearly 4 times as much as Hermes, his countywide race garnered him more than 4 times the votes, dropping his dollars per vote number to $0.80.

One item of interest from Fulton Brock's post-general report were contributions from a couple in Oro Valley, which is in Pima County. The twosome share a name with some of the people involved in the Stapley indictment. On October 16, 2008, Jason and Kris Wolfswinkel each gave $390 (the maximum allowed individual contribution) to Brock's campaign.

Stapley's failure to report his involvement with some Wolfswinkel family businesses is at the heart of his legal travails.

Wouldn't it be sweet if Brock's name was added to the list of indicted Republicans? Yeah, I know it probably won't happen, but one has to wonder why some Pima County residents care enough about a Maricopa County supervisor's race to fork over the max contribution to his campaign.

Both of these could change once all reports are in, plus the numbers don't include the "independent" expenditures that benefitted Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas. However, they both won their races, no matter how unethically, so they don't qualify for "worst bargain" under the guidelines of this post.


I was going to do one of the comparisons for some of the ballot initiatives, but there were a couple of hurdles there - too many of the committees haven't filed reports, and in many cases, there are multiple committees in support/opposition of a given prop.


Comparison purposes -

To put some of these numbers in perspective, in 2004, then-Congressman JD Hayworth spent $7.58/vote to retain his seat. However, that was nearly 180 times the rate of his opponent, Elizabeth Rogers. She spent roughly $0.04 per vote.

Compare this to 2006, when both spent more per vote in their races. Hayworth spent $31.12/vote to lose to Harry Mitchell in CD5; Rogers spent $0.06/vote to win the Kyrene Justice of the Peace race.

OK, that's not really relevant to the rest of the post, but it should give pause to those who would support a speculated-upon Hayworth gubernortorial candidacy. It should also give hope to candidates like Rebecca Schneider and Marilyn Fox, who ran strong campaigns on limited budgets.

There is life after losing an election.

Let's see what happens in two years before considering them and others like them, to be electoral afterthoughts.

Other campaign and campaign finance news -

...According to the Secretary of State's website, the first official candidate committee for 2010 has been formed by Michelle Reagan, Republican State Representative from north Scottsdale. It's an exploratory committee and doesn't list the office that she is "exploring." My guess is State Senate, though Corporation Commission or State Treasurer are possibilities.

...Jim McAllister, an AZCentral.com Plugged In blogger, notes that victorious candidates Jim Lane (Scottsdale Mayor) and Lisa Borowsky (Scottsdale City Council) already have their hands out to developers, seeking contributions to retire their campaign debts.

Apparently, they don't read the news reports about indicted and convicted public officials.

...The AZ Republic has a story that current Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne will be forming a committee to explore a run for State Attorney General in 2010.

Ummm....yeah. Horne has spent most of two terms making the public education system in AZ one of the worst in the country, and now he wants us to set him loose on the legal system?

Later...

Time for some 2010 speculations...

...especially since "Candie Dates" at Sonoran Alliance got the ball rolling with a post concerning possible candidates to replace Jan Brewer at the Secretary of State's office if she ascends to the governor's office (OK, OK - "when" :( ) and the AZ Rep has an article about how Janet Napolitano's expected move to D.C. would "shake up" the 2010 race for governor.

A couple of caveats -

1. Most of my focus will be on Democrats from Maricopa County because they're who I have the most familiarity with. There are certain to be candidates from Pima, Pinal, Coconino and other counties whose names I haven't heard.

2. This is all pure speculation on my part. None of the potential candidates mentioned has ever spoken to me about their future plans.

3. The underlying assumptions are that Janet Napolitano leaves and does not return to run against John McCain in two years (though a run against Jon Kyl in four years remains a possibility) and that, despite laying the groundwork for a reelection run, McCain chooses not to run again at age 74.

4. The goal of this post is to start a discussion, so if you have some legitimate speculations of your own, feel free to leave a comment (just keep it civil :) ).


On to the idle thoughts random musings... :))

State Mine Inspector - why on God's green earth is this still an elected office? Could someone explain this to me, please?


State Superintendent of Public Instruction -

Speculation elsewhere on possible Republican candidates has focused on State Sen. John Huppenthal and State Rep. Rich Crandall. Both are very conservative; Huppenthal despises public education with a burning passion and Crandall does not.

As for possible Democratic candidates, Slade Mead and Jason Williams, who both ran in 2006 may try again. However, Williams has remained more active in the education field and has a higher profile in that area. Other to consider include Jackie and John Thrasher. Both are career teachers, both lost elections this year and may want to try for different offices in 2010 - it's looking more and more like John is not destined to be the one who unseats Congressman Trent Franks in CD3 and Jackie could make Republicans Jim Weiers and Doug Quelland eat green crow by winning a statewide office after weaselling their way back into office in LD10.


State Treasurer - No clue here. At all.


Attorney General -

On the Republican side, I have no idea, though I expect their nominee to be some party apparatchik.

As for the Democratic possibilities, I don't have much more of a clue here, though Tim Nelson (former candidate for Maricopa County Attorney) is a possibility if he doesn't accompany Napolitano to D.C. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is a possibility here too, if he chooses to give Terry Goddard an unobstructed run at the Democratic gubernortorial nomination. Long shots to even consider a run, much less win one, are Don Bivens, chair of the AZ Democratic Party, and Mark Manoil, chair of the Maricopa County Democratic Party. Both are practicing lawyers.


Secretary of State -

The Sonoran Alliance post linked above has a pretty good run down of possible Rep candidates for 2010 even though the focus was on possibilities for appointment to replace Brewer in the immediate future. One name that was mentioned over there was former Tempe state Rep. Laura Knaperek. They raved over her because she is so conservative, but I don't see it - she lost her last general election in 2006 against a couple of relatively new Democratic candidates for state lege, and she lost her last primary this year in CD5. Even good candidates can lose *one* election but she has lost three this decade. She may want to consider *not* running for office for a while.

Current Corporation Commissioner Kris Mayes may consider a run here, too. While her non-political experience is in journalism, she has degrees in law and public administration. Since she is rumored to be interested in moving to the ninth floor (aka - the Governor's office), this office would be a logical steppingstone.

As for Democrats, Sandra Kennedy has been rumored to have interest in the job, though her recent victory in the AZ Corporation Commission race probably means she won't go for this in two years. There are a couple of termed out state legislators who may be interested, and perhaps some not-so-termed-out ones, if it doesn't look like the Dems will improve their representation in the lege in two years.


Governor -

The list is long and varied here. The Republican possibilities are discussed in the AZ Rep article, though Jan Brewer has to be considered the early favorite whether or not she ascends into the governorship within a few weeks. A dark horse here could be Congressman Jeff Flake, whose interest in the job has been the subject of rumors in the past. While the governor's job pays less than U.S. Rep, he wouldn't have to fly back and forth to D.C. every weekend and wouldn't have to sleep in his office to save money for his kids' college education.

On the Democratic side, current Attorney General Terry Goddard is considered the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination with Phil Gordon the primary threat to that. Former AZ Dem chair and former candidate for U.S. Senate Jim Pederson is also mentioned frequently. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has been the subject of rumors here, but she seems more likely to take a run at John McCain's Senate seat at this point.


Arizona Corporation Commission (2 seats) -

No clue as for the Republican possiblilities, and the only Democratic names that I can think of right off the top of my head are Sam George and Kara Kelty, both of whom were candidates this year.


U.S. Senate -

If McCain doesn't run again, the field is wide open on both sides of the aisle.

Republican possibilities include current Congressmen John Shadegg (CD3) and Jeff Flake (CD6), though there are sure to be other names floated (Mayes' name might fit here, too, but she passed on a run in CD1 this year. She may not be interested in federal office.)

Democratic possibilities include whichever of the Goddard/Gordon duo doesn't run for governor, Jim Pederson (again) and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (CD8). Giffords may be a possible candidate even if McCain runs again - many people in AZ believe that a strong female candidate would have the best chance of unseating the popular McCain.


U.S. Congress -

There is a frequent rumor that Congressman Ed Pastor (CD4) could face a primary challenge in two years from Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. If that actually happens, it would be an interesting, and probably heated, contest between two entrenched west Phoenix political machines.

As for the other CDs, I've got no idea, though any special-election winning replacement for rumored-to-becoming-U.S. Secretary of the Interior Raul Grijalva (CD7) is certain to face some strong challengers.


Other names that could fit into one of these potential races include Dennis Burke (former Napolitano chief of staff and rumored U.S. Attorney-to-be), state legislators David Lujan (D), Kyrsten Sinema (D), Chad Campbell (D) and Michelle Reagan (R) and outgoing Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross.



Later!

The 2010 campaigns are already starting

From CNN's Political Ticker -

From CNN's Dana Bash

(CNN) — CNN has learned that John McCain met Tuesday night with top advisers to start the process of setting up a political action committee.

A senior McCain aide says that was done to send the signal he intends to run for another term as senator from Arizona.

He is up for re-election in 2010.

This is no guarantee that McCain is going to actually run for reelection, but it does increase the likelihood that he will do so. Now if we can just convince Janet Napolitano to hang out in AZ for two more years - the political geek in me wants to see two of AZ's electoral phenoms face off in two years. :)

Of course, it doesn't bode well for couch-sleepers (and McCain allies) John Shadegg and Jeff Flake, who are both rumored to be interested in running for the seat.


Later!

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans rate members of Congress...AZ results

Heads up on this courtesy Ron Pies' AZCentral.com blog...

The grades of AZ's Congressional delegation, from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund -

Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Note: Mitchell has just been endorsed by the VFW Political Action Committee.

Gabrelle Giffords (D-CD8) - A+ - comment: "13 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Ed Pastor (D-CD4) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Raul Grijalva (D-CD7) - A - comment: "12 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Rick Renzi (R-CD1) - A - comment: "11 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship"

Trent Franks (R-CD2) - C - comment: "8 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

John Shadegg (R-CD3) - B - comment: "10 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

Jeff Flake (R-CD6) - C - comment: "7 out of 13 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

John McCain, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential nominee - D - comment: "3 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"

Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator - C - comment: "5 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, not a Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsor"


The average grade for the Democratic members of AZ's delegation? 4.25 (A = 4 points, B = 3, etc., with "+" = an additional .5)

The average grade for the Republican members of AZ's delegation? 2.33; without the soon-to-be gone Renzi inflating their grade? 2, barely a C.

OK, so it's not much of a surprise that AZ's Republicans did so poorly on veterans' issues when compared to AZ's Democrats - it's long been common knowledge that Republican 'support our veterans' rhetoric is just that, *rhetoric.*

Not substance.

However, who would have guessed that the biggest drag on the Reps' grade would be John McCain, the former naval aviator who touts his status as a former POW at every turn?

It seems that Rudy Giuliani's "noun, verb, 9-11" meaningless spiel has been replaced by John McCain's "noun, verb, "POW" standard stump speech as the biggest snow job in American politics.

The only veterans McCain is concerned about are himself and those that support him with money or Swift Boat-style ad appearances; the rest mean nothing to him.

Access the entire report card here.

Later!

Congressman Mitchell's response to the letter on the bailout

A few days ago, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell concerning the Wall Street bailout proposal floated by the Bush Administration.

Congressman Mitchell voted against the original proposal (which failed) and voted in favor of the revised bill.

The Congressman's response, via email -

Dear [cpmaz]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1424, the economic recovery package.

The current economic crisis extends far beyond Wall Street or Washington. It affects us all. If the credit market freezes, then it is going to become dramatically more difficult for anyone to borrow money to purchase a home or a car, or to send their kids to college. Businesses, large and small, will be cut off from the credit they need to stock their shelves and make payroll.

Throughout consideration of this rescue package, I believed that both parties needed to come together to forge a compromise that would protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence. For this reason, I opposed the blank check proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. And, with less than 24 hours for deliberation and public comment, I voted against H.R. 3997, a modified proposal that House Leaders rushed to the floor on September 29, 2008, and failed by a vote of 205 to 228.

After the House of Representatives rejected these hasty proposals, members of both parties worked together to make significant improvements to this legislation.

H.R. 1424 authorizes the U.S. Department of Treasury to begin an aggressive program to restore liquidity to our nation's credit market. Specifically, it authorizes the Department Treasury to begin buying and re-selling certain mortgage backed securities that are currently preventing lenders from issuing credit. Unlike the lump sum $700 billion pay out in the Paulson plan, the legislation provides the Secretary with an initial $250 billion, followed by another $100 billion upon a Treasury Department report to Congress. The Secretary could then request up to an additional $350 billion, however, Congress will be given 15 days to vote to stop this from happening if it does not approve of how the Secretary is managing the rescue plan, or does not want to commit additional taxpayer funds to it.

I am not happy with everything in the new bill, especially the earmarks that the Senate snuck into the bill at the last-minute. This is precisely the kind of legislating that makes the public so distrustful of Congress and so suspicious when they are asked to support an important economic rescue package. This is disappointing on many fronts, particularly because I spent nearly three decades teaching government at Tempe High School, and I am certain that this is not how our political process was intended to function.

However, inaction would cripple our economy.

To its credit, the new package includes improvements to protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence.

It increases Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and National Credit Union Administration ("NCUA") insurance limits to $250,000. This is not only important protection to individual depositors, but also to small businesses that keep payrolls in banks and credit unions and need to know these funds are secure. This provision was not included in the Paulson plan or the first bill brought to the House on September 29.

In addition, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 puts a stop to so-called "golden parachutes" - extravagant exit bonuses to executives who leave companies that may have had a hand in creating the current crisis.

Also, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 will protect taxpayers by making sure that the recovery program is subject to oversight and judicial review. Four separate entities will provide constant oversight to ensure efficiency and fairness in the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"). This program will buy and re-sell assets from distressed companies, and new provisions for recoupment ensure that costs from the program are not passed on to taxpayers.

The new package will also help many homeowners in danger of foreclosure by allowing the government to work with loan servicers to re-structure mortgages.

Significantly, the new package includes a recoupment provision, which requires the President to submit legislation to Congress in five years to begin recouping any losses incurred by the federal government as a result of TARP from the financial industry in order to make taxpayers whole.

Finally, the new package will extend key tax credits to encourage investments in alternative energies like solar. Right here in Arizona, APS and Abengoa are planning to build the world's largest solar power plant - big enough to power 70,000 homes. Without these tax credits, it will not happen. These investments will be taken overseas. Now, the investments spawned by these tax breaks will help drive our economy forward by creating thousands of jobs and producing more than $4 billion worth of energy over the next 30 years.

I am disappointed that the final package did not extend important cuts to capital gains and estate taxes. These cuts are set to expire and I think the last thing we want to do is have investors worried about a tax increase. Last year, Representative Christopher Shays and I introduced H.R. 3170, Capital Gains and Estate Tax Relief Act, to make these cuts permanent, and I believe that the inclusion of this legislation would have encouraged investment and provided important certainty to our tax code.

However, with an economic disaster looming, I believe we had a responsibility to act. The final package was approved by the U.S. Senate on October 1, 2008 by a 74-25 vote. I voted for, and the House passed the economic package two days later by a bipartisan vote of 263 to 171. The President signed the legislation into law the same day.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about our economy and the government's economic recovery package. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have additional comments or concerns.

If you would like to receive e-mail updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

HEM/jw

I haven't actually looked at the revised bailout package, but while it sounds to be a much better package than the original one, I'm still hesitant about anything with a price tag in excess of $700 billion dollars.

Especially when the primary beneficiaries (though not the *only* beneficiaries) are Wall Street CEOs/inveterate gamblers with other people's money.

...As for the rest of the AZ delegation in addition to Harry Mitchell, Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Ed Pastor, and Republican John Shadegg voted in favor; Democrat Raul Grijalva and Republicans Jeff Flake and Trent Franks voted against.

Later!

Wow! The AZ Congressional delegation can agree on something besides postal facility namings...

Of course, even on those rare occasions when AZ's federal legislators are on the same page, it's for very different reasons...

As has been reported in many places, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout bill for Wall Street investment firms, and the entire Arizona delegation voted against it.

Note: more info on the bailout is available from the House Financial Services Committee here.

Their reasons were varied - from the Dems hating it because it didn't contain enough protections for taxpayers to the Reps hating it because it contained some protections.

A number of MSM pundits and writers have opined that the measure was defeated by members of the House who are facing tough reelection battles (AP via TriValleyCentral.com). There may be an element of truth in that idea, but an examination of even just the AZ delegation's situations belies that the notion is universally accurate -

Ed Pastor (D-CD4), Raul Grijalva (D-CD7), and Jeff Flake (R-CD6) are totally safe in their races.

Trent Franks (R-CD2) is close to safe in his, too.

Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) is facing a solid challenger in Tim Bee, but she is solidly positioned herself, and should retain her seat.

Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) is facing a tough fight because of his district's demographics (40K more registered Republicans) and John Shadegg (R-CD3) is facing the fight of his political career (a super-strong challenger in Bob Lord and his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year).

Rick Renzi (R-CD1) isn't even running (something about a federal indictment and upcoming trial).

So only two of the eight AZ Congresscritters who voted against the bailout are facing serious election threats (apologies to supporters of Tim Bee and John Thrasher, but that's the way I see it), yet all eight voted against it.

Simply put, the Bush Administration's bailout proposal was just a bad idea, even for people who believe that a government response to the turmoil in the markets is appropriate.

After all of the finger-pointing dies down (publicly, anyway), look for some sort of bailout proposal to come out of the House, probably with a price tag that's much lower than the Administration's desired $700 billion blank check, and also with some serious safeguards for the taxpayers' money.

At this point though, any changes will probably appeal more to Democrats looking to protect taxpayers' interests than appeal to Republicans looking to use this crisis as an excuse to further deregulate the financial markets.

Don't expect the AZ delegation to be in so much agreement next time.


On the Democratic side, the AZ Star on the reasons that Reps. Grijlava and Giffords voted against the bill here; the Ahwatukee Foothills News on Rep. Harry Mitchell's objections here. Bob Lord's (D challenger in CD3) press release here.

On the Republican side, Rep. Shadegg's op-ed in USA Today is here; a Rep. Flake quote is here (Phoenix Business Journal).

Note2: I'd have linked to the websites of Reps. Giffords and Pastor, but the House website is still experiencing problems related to its heavy site traffic on Monday, and couldn't access those pages.

Note3: ever-loyal (and perceptive!) reader and frequent commenter Elizabeth noted in an email that after the failure of the bailout on Monday, followed by the stock market's precipitous drop, the Washington Post ran this story on the front page of their website.

It chronicles what is truly the greatest crisis facing American society today - the decline in home run totals in Major League Baseball.

Later...

Events and other election stuff (and an Ethics Committee hearing into Jack Harper's behavior)...

...Tuesday, August 12 - As chronicled by Zelph at AZNetroots, the hearing by the Senate Ethics Committee, putatively to investigate the actions of Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) is scheduled to take place at 1 p.m. At the end of the Senate session in June, Harper abused his power as the chair of the Senate meeting to cut off Democratic Senators Paula Aboud and Ken Cheuvront. He was trying to railroad an anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment on to the November ballot; they were working to prevent that. When Harper arbitrarily shut off the Dems' microphones, he violated Senate rules.

However justified the hearing may be, it's nothing but a sham as two of the three Republican members of the five-member committee, Sens. Barbara Leff and Robert Blendu, have already announced that they don't think that Harper committed any violations. Still, it could be interesting to watch the hearing; while the outcome is all but determined, some of the nuances and shadings of the proceedings could be fun (like who shows up to watch, how long they make Harper squirm before giving him a free pass, etc.) Video should be available here.

...Tuesday, August 12 - The LD17 Democrats will hold their monthly meeting at the Pyle Center in Tempe (SW corner of Baseline and Rural). The special guest speaker will be Congressman Harry Mitchell. Other highlights include Adralyn Wendel from the coordinated campaign office, campaign updates, and T-SHIRTS!

...Tuesday, August 12 - Rebecca Schneider and Chris Gramazio, Democratic challengers to Congressman Jeff Flake (R-CD6), will hold a debate at the main branch of the Chandler Library, 22 S. Delaware St.

...The Ed Hermes for County Supervisor campaign will be holding phone banks on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, and canvassing in LD20 on Sunday, August 17. For more details, contact the campaign at 480-626-8100 or stop by the campaign HQ at 7305 W. Boston St., Chandler.

...Friday, August 15 - There will be an open house at the coordinated campaign office in Tempe (123 E. Baseline - SE corner Mill and Baseline). Stop by from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and meet Congressman Harry Mitchell, LD17 State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill, and LD17 State Representatives Ed Ableser and David Schapira as well at Ted Maish and Rae Waters (LD 20 Candidates), Phil Hettmansperger (LD 21 Candidate), Tammy Pursley and Judah Nativio (LD 18 Candidates), and Ed Hermes (County Board of Supervisors Candidate).

...In "non-event but still pretty informative (and funny) news, the AZ Democratic Party has launched ShadeggforSenate.com, dedicated to the future political aspirations of Congressman John Shadegg (R-Calgon, take me away!). It's a sharp needle aimed toward the balloon of Shadegg's career in D.C., but it has a tough act to follow in the Maricopa County Democratic Party's Joe'sGotToGo.com, aimed at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Later!

Those Republicans, working to protect America from those darn lawyers*

*well, except for the lawyers who are working for the Republicans as they try to undermine the Constitution...

On Thursday, the House passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill passed on a nearly-party line vote of 247 - 178. Every Democrat present supported the bill, as did 14 Republicans.

It should be noted that all four Democratic members of AZ's delegation - Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - were present and voted in favor of he bill, and all four Republican members of AZ's delegation - Rick Renzi, John Shadegg, Trent Franks, and Jeff Flake - were present and voted in opposition to the bill.

As predicted last week, the Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R - CA), trotted out the straw man of "oil drilling" and the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" as their rationalizations for opposing the bill.

"Trial lawyers" was the big club during the floor debate, though when the bill went through the House Rules Committee on Wednesday, the Reps proposed seven amendments related to energy (most were to open protected federal lands to oil drilling), however, none of those were made in order by the Committee (that darn 'relevancy' requirement! :) ).

On the floor, however, they kept stressing the point that while of course they opposed pay discrimination against women in the workforce, they had to oppose this bill because it "lines the pockets of the trial lawyers".

Funny, but while they objected to the enforcement provisions in the bill (i.e. - lawsuits), they couldn't be bothered to propose an alternative enforcement scheme; they just wanted to kill the bill (that darn 'protect big business at all costs' plank of the Republican Party platform! :) ).

Their anti-trial lawyer screeds might have had more credibility if they had proposed added gender-based pay discrimination to the list of predicate acts under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 96 of the U.S. Code.

For those of you who aren't Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona, that section of federal law contains the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Just ignore the sound of popping blood vessels coming from the corporate types and their myriad lobbyists and water carriers on Capitol Hill (that darn 'forfeiture of assets' provision :)) ).

OK, OK, so I know that would never happen, even though it would certainly be appropriate in some of the more egregious cases. However, the point is a simple one, and it is a valid one.

The Republicans, who proclaimed very piously their support for equal pay for equal work and for laws guaranteeing such, gave lie to their protestations by working to ensure that current equal pay laws border on unenforceable.

It seems that the "law and order" Republicans only favor enforcing the laws of the land only against poor people and immigrants, not against corporate bigwigs.


Anyway, a press release on this subject from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can be found here; a release from Republican leader John Boehner is here. President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, though anything can happen during an election year.


The best news for an Arizona Republican, related to this bill, is that Jeff Flake finally had one of his "anti-earmark" amendments pass (by voice vote, of all things).

The addition of that provision didn't stop him from voting against the underlying bill though.

Anyway, have a good night...

FEC Reports are in....

Others have covered this area already, but have tended to focus on their own CDs; the basic raw numbers from all CDs with active committees are included in this post.


Key - candidate - net contributions, individual contributions, PAC contributions, net expenditures, cash on hand. (Net contributions may not match the total of individual and PAC contributions due to refunds, candidate contributions to their own campaigns, or other reasons. Generally, any such variance isn't significant.

CD1 -

Ann Kirkpatrick (D), challenger - $328053.05, $218453.05, $109600.00, $125340.27, $668177.46

Howard Shanker (D), challenger - $33274.60, $33274.60, $0, $46603.04, $20972.36

Mary Kim Titla (D), challenger - $54104.75, $52466.36, $1638.39, $45039.94, $57385.88

Sydney Hay (R), challenger - $95033.73, $76518.73, $18515.00, $59959.65, $257408.09

Preston Korn (R), challenger - $2885.00, $2885.00, $0, $7362.48, $9173.96


CD2 -

John Thrasher (D), challenger - $8295.00, $7895.00, $0, $6599.59, $14207.90

Trent Franks (R), incumbent - $88386.00, $53261.00, $35625.00, $44885.27, $129774.83


CD3 -

Bob Lord (D), challenger - $233202.50, $161794.90, $73507.60, $158933.66, $706523.25

John Shadegg (R), incumbent - $536024.78, $421210.36, $140014.42, $121592.91, $1354246.30

The Shadegg campaign is gloating about their fundraising success during the April - June reporting period, but there's more than a little element of "whistling past the graveyard" in their press releases - Bob Lord is easily the strongest challenger, Dem or Rep, in the state and he's mounting a challenge to Shadegg that is far tougher than any challenge he's faced since entering Congress.

Note: The grand opening of the Lord campaign headquarters is this Saturday, July 19, at 4736 N. 44th St., Phoenix (just south of Camelback) from 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.


CD4 -

Ed Pastor (D), incumbent - $229493.13, $117377.88, $113515.25, $69158.20, $1428843.55


CD5 -

Harry Mitchell (D), incumbent - $335002.66, $224962.13, $113175.00, $85554.75, $1372464.22

David Schweikert (R), challenger - $162749.05, $162749.05, $0, $155851.16, $520990.10

Jim Ogsbury (R), challenger - $49783.24, $46783.24, $3000.00, $79435.55, $323442.10

Laura Knaperek (R), challenger - $34249.00, $37549.00, $0, $23200.05, $105520.79

Mark Anderson (R), challenger - $29278.14, $29278.14, $0, $25618.73, $68791.33

Susan Bitter Smith (R), challenger - $150379.51, $110603.51, $7000.00, $52363.67, $247945.89

The Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell have made some major bets on their abilities to emerge victoriously from the primary and then move on to defeat Mitchell - they've accumulated over $700K in loans and debts - Ogsbury and Schweikert at $250K each, Bitter Smith at more than $156K, and Knaperek has $50K in campaign debt. The only CD5 Rep who lists no campaign loans or obligations is Mark Anderson. In most cases, the loans/debt constitute a significant percentage (half or more) of the candidates' cash on hand totals.

Expect the following headline in mid-November - "Join the LD8 and LD17 Republicans for a joint campaign-debt retirement bake sale and car wash."

OK, OK, probably not... :))

Candie Dates (love that name!) at Sonoran Alliance has a post with some good graphs showing the CD5 challengers' financial positions.


CD6 -

Chris Gramazio (D), challenger - $3137.15, $3075.00, $0, 2539.24, $597.91

Jeff Flake (R), incumbent - $200035.00, $194835.00, $8800.00, $74097.13, $1091474.52


CD7 -

Raul Grijalva (D), incumbent - $125,398.00, $64,398.00, $61,000.00, $89,625.11, $171,043.21.


CD8 -

Gabrielle Giffords (D), incumbent - $562167.97, $381748.16, $181753.35, $156814.05, $2077845.80

Tim Bee (R), challenger - $390406.65, $307856.32, $79950.00, $229078.66, $687703.62


No reports that I could find from challengers Rebecca Schneider (D - CD6), Lee Gentry (R - CD5), Don Karg (R - CD4), or Joe Sweeney and Gene Chewning (Rs - CD7).

Withdrawn candidates - Annie Loyd (I - CD3).

Later!

National Champion ASU softball team receiving some national recognition on Tuesday

According to the Daily Leader, a planned schedule published by the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider H. Res. 1323, sponsored by ASU's own (and CD5's own!) Congressman Harry Mitchell.

The text of the bill -

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 1323

Commending the Arizona State University softball team for their victory in the 2008 Women's College World Series.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 8, 2008

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

RESOLUTION

Commending the Arizona State University softball team for their victory in the 2008 Women's College World Series.

Whereas, on June 3, 2008, the Arizona State University Sun Devils won the 2008 NCAA Women's College World Series with a resounding 11 to 0 defeat over the Texas A&M Aggies;

Whereas this win marked the first national title for Arizona State University in softball;

Whereas the Arizona State University Sun Devils set a record for the highest margin of victory during a championship game in the NCAA Women's College World Series history;

Whereas the Arizona State University women's softball team won an impressive 66 games this season and went 56 to 5 during the season and went 10 for 10 in the post season under the leadership of Coach Clint Myers;

Whereas super slugger Kaitlin Cochran set a new, NCAA single-season record by drawing 29 intentional walks;

Whereas pitcher Katie Burkhart earned Most Valuable Player honors in the Women's College World Series with 53 strikeouts and a perfect record of 5 wins to 0 losses;

Whereas the Arizona State University coaching staff, comprised of Head Coach Clint Meyers and Assistant Coaches Kirsten Voak and Robert Wager, was named the NFCA's NCAA Division I National Coaching Staff of the Year;

Whereas 6 players, were named to the Louisville Slugger/NFCA All-Pacific Region Team;

Whereas 5 of those 6 players, Katie Burkhart, Mindy Cowles, Krista Donnenwirth, Kaitlin Cochran, and Jackie Vasquez, advanced to earn Louisville Slugger/NFCA All-America honors;

Whereas the Arizona State University softball team earned the enthusiastic support of students, faculty, alumni, and Sun Devils fans across the country during their national championship season; and

Whereas the Arizona State University softball team is an inspiration to student athletes in Arizona and across the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--

(1) commends the Arizona State University softball team for their victory in the 2008 Women's College World Series;

(2) recognizes the achievements of the players, coaches, students, and staff whose hard work and dedication helped the Arizona State University Sun Devils win the championship; and

(3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit a copy of this resolution to Arizona State University President Michael Crow, softball Coach Clint Myers, and Athletic Director Lisa Love for appropriate display.

The House is scheduled to begin legislative business at 10:00 a.m. eastern (7:00 a.m. AZ time). Assuming that the measures are considered in the order that they are listed on the agenda and that they take approximately 20 minutes each to consider and vote on, this resolution should hit the House floor sometime after 9:30 a.m. AZ time. No guarantees, though - the schedule is subject to change without notice.

The bill will be heard under suspension, meaning that it will take a 2/3 vote to pass the bill, but have no fear, Congressman Jeff "Votes Against Everything" Flake probably won't be opposing this one - he signed on a cosponsor.

Either he's mellowing in his dotage, or it's an even-numbered year and he's facing opposition named Rebecca Schneider and Chris Gramazio this fall. Hmmm..... :)

Later....

Jeff Flake (R-CD6)- Old Dog, New Trick

...Actually, that title is misleading; he hasn't come up with a new trick as much as he has found a variation on an old trick.

A year ago, I put up a post studying a pattern to Congressman Jeff Flake's anti-earmark crusade - his amendments to block or strip out earmarks always seemed to target community projects and similar activities; almost never did they target earmarks dedicated to specific defense contractors or other corporations.

This year, he has become a little more subtle about it; most of his anti-earmark amendments are just that, general anti-earmark amendments, ones that don't target specific projects (typical language - "Would prohibit any funds appropriated for the [XYZ program] from being used for a congressional earmark, as defined by clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House.")

Every so often, however, he tries to get, ummm...*creative."

One such creative effort is his proposed amendment to H.R. 1286, The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act.

The underlying act would add to the national system of historic trails "a corridor of approximately 600 miles following the route taken by the armies of General George Washington and Count Rochambeau between Newport, Rhode Island, and Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781 and 1782."

Flake's amendment would bar the act from taking effect until "the date that the Secretary of the Interior completes all backlogged maintenance in units of the National Park System."

Less than a year ago, the dollar value attached to backlogged NPS maintenance was over $8 billion.

Now, someone could say that Congressman Flake is simply trying bring attention to a shortfall at the National Park System, something that many people, including me, would laud.

However, that "someone" would be somebody who is totally unfamiliar with Flake's history as Congress' version of Mikey (of Life Cereal fame) - "He won't vote for it, he hates *everything*!!.

More indicative of his attitude toward the National Park System is his vote against funding it at all (last June's "no" vote on H.R. 2643, Interior Department Appropriations).

Note: Flake is nothing if not consistent - in 2005 and 2006, he voted against Interior Department (and NPS) appropriations too (2005 here; 2006 here.)

Something tells me that if Congress ever considers a bill adequately fund the National Park System's maintenance efforts, Flake will forget his current amendment and oppose that move with all of his being.

In any event, H.R. 1286 is scheduled for consideration on the House floor later this week, most likely on Thursday.


There are two Democratic candidates standing up for families and fiscal prudence ("prudence" means sometimes spending a little now to avoid spending a lot later, kind of what happens when you put off things like basic maintenance).

Visit the websites of Rebecca Schneider and Chris Gramazio and contribute, volunteer, or simply give them a little love - they can use it, and CD6, Arizona, and the country need it.

Later!