Thanks to blogger Jill Richardson at La Vida Locavore for the heads-up on this...
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ2), already one of the least district-focused members of Congress, has apparently taken the fact that he is a member of the minority party in the House as reason to propose or co-sponsor a number of bills that have absolutely no relationship to his duties as a Congressman.
My personal favorite so far is his original co-sponsorship of H. Con. Res. 121.
That one would declare a "National Year of the Bible."
If passed, the fact the HConRes121 specifically mentions the Christian bible (New Testament) while ignoring other, non-Christian religions (and the non-religious) could actually make one of the normally harmless HConResolutions actually unconstitutional (The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion...")
Imagine the uproar from Franks and his cohorts if one of the Muslim MOCs proposed a "National Year of the Quran," one of the Jewish MOCs proposed a "National Year of the Torah," or a non-religious MOC proposed something similar regarding a text that is the inspiration for worship by millions of people all over the world (maybe a "National Year of the SI Swimsuit Issue"? :)) )
Now, perhaps I've been too hard on Rep. Franks - he *has* sponsored eight bills, and two of them are even directly relevant to his district.
- H.R.1122, which would "require the Secretary of the Interior to plan, design, and construct a new school at Third Mesa, Arizona, on the Hopi Indian Reservation." In a sign that this bill is actually a good one, it is cosponsored by the Democratic members of the AZ delegation, while the other two Republican members of the delegation (Jeff Flake and John Shadegg) are staying far away from it.
- H.R. 2100, which would give 315 acres of federal land in Mojave County to the AZ Game and Fish Dept. for the establishment of a shooting range. And in a show of the universally high regard that the other members of Congress have for this bill, NONE of them have signed on as cosponsors.
Later...
Showing posts with label Franks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Franks. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
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!
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!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
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...
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...
Thursday, January 08, 2009
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 -
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!
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!
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
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!
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!
Friday, October 03, 2008
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 -
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!
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!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
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...
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...
Friday, August 01, 2008
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...
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...
Thursday, July 17, 2008
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!
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!
Sunday, July 13, 2008
FEC reports starting to trickle in
There's only two days until the deadline (July 15), but during an election year, most campaigns wait until the last possible minute to reveal how they're doing financially. It's a tactical thing - they're trying to deny any advantage to their opponents.
So far, only a few candidates have submitted their reports. I'll update with a more complete post later this week.
Because the candidate report pickings are slim, I'll include some info from other committees.
From July reports, unless otherwise noted:
Arizona Libertarian Party - Received $35.00, spent $1.62, cash on hand $5067.56
Arizona Republican Party (June report) - Received $98148.51, spent $96082.28, cash on hand $112626.81. Pretty good month there.
Arizona State Democratic Central Executive Committee (June report) - Received $207242.03, spent $109015.08. cash on hand $117746.50. Hmmmm....better than 'pretty good' month there. Much better. :)
Arizona Cotton Growers Association - Received $550.00, spent $2960.53, cash on hand $5246.92. Interesting contributions by the ACGA - $500 each to John Shadegg, Ed Pastor, and Susan Bitter Smith (all running for Congress); $390 to Kevin Gibbons, running for LD18 state senate.
CVS/Caremark Corporation Employees PAC (June report) - Received $19365.00, spent $82000.00, cash on hand $-16983.00. This particular PAC made this list because it has a Scottsdale mailing address. And it spent over $35K in May alone on contributions to races for the Texas legislature. Be interesting to see what they are trying to buy next session.
AgPAC of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation - Received $10229.26, spent $1007.00, cash on hand $9222.26. Interesting contributions by AgPAC - $500 to John Shadegg, $250 each to Kevin Gibbons (LD18) and Steve Pierce (LD1), Republican candidates for state senate.
Bob Lord, CD3 challenger (Democrat) - No report yet, but his campaign is claiming a very successful quarter. It wouldn't be surprising if the claim is true - John Shadegg has been out shaking every money tree that he can find; there's probably a reason that he's running scared..
Trent Franks, CD2 incumbent (Republican) - Received $57377.44 ($32084.37 from PACs), spent $32800.56, cash on hand $147351.71.
Rick Renzi, CD1 incumbent, not running for reelection (Republican) - Received nada, spent $141.44, cash on hand $3825.02. Campaign committee debt of $456089.91 (candidate loads to his own election committee and legal fees.)
I just like putting up the Renzi numbers. :))
More later this week!
So far, only a few candidates have submitted their reports. I'll update with a more complete post later this week.
Because the candidate report pickings are slim, I'll include some info from other committees.
From July reports, unless otherwise noted:
Arizona Libertarian Party - Received $35.00, spent $1.62, cash on hand $5067.56
Arizona Republican Party (June report) - Received $98148.51, spent $96082.28, cash on hand $112626.81. Pretty good month there.
Arizona State Democratic Central Executive Committee (June report) - Received $207242.03, spent $109015.08. cash on hand $117746.50. Hmmmm....better than 'pretty good' month there. Much better. :)
Arizona Cotton Growers Association - Received $550.00, spent $2960.53, cash on hand $5246.92. Interesting contributions by the ACGA - $500 each to John Shadegg, Ed Pastor, and Susan Bitter Smith (all running for Congress); $390 to Kevin Gibbons, running for LD18 state senate.
CVS/Caremark Corporation Employees PAC (June report) - Received $19365.00, spent $82000.00, cash on hand $-16983.00. This particular PAC made this list because it has a Scottsdale mailing address. And it spent over $35K in May alone on contributions to races for the Texas legislature. Be interesting to see what they are trying to buy next session.
AgPAC of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation - Received $10229.26, spent $1007.00, cash on hand $9222.26. Interesting contributions by AgPAC - $500 to John Shadegg, $250 each to Kevin Gibbons (LD18) and Steve Pierce (LD1), Republican candidates for state senate.
Bob Lord, CD3 challenger (Democrat) - No report yet, but his campaign is claiming a very successful quarter. It wouldn't be surprising if the claim is true - John Shadegg has been out shaking every money tree that he can find; there's probably a reason that he's running scared..
Trent Franks, CD2 incumbent (Republican) - Received $57377.44 ($32084.37 from PACs), spent $32800.56, cash on hand $147351.71.
Rick Renzi, CD1 incumbent, not running for reelection (Republican) - Received nada, spent $141.44, cash on hand $3825.02. Campaign committee debt of $456089.91 (candidate loads to his own election committee and legal fees.)
I just like putting up the Renzi numbers. :))
More later this week!
Saturday, June 21, 2008
How do you split 30 pieces of silver 105 ways?
On Friday, the House passed an update of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 293 -129. The bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration in their efforts to spy on Americans.
In addition to the immunity provision (Title II of the bill) it allows the government to "initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost." (AP)
AZ delegation votes: Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Mitchell, Giffords, Flake - yea; Pastor, Grijalva - nay.
I suppose I could expound at length on why this was a horrible move, but it's late, I'm tired, and work starts early tomorrow, so let me sum up -
'Nuff said.
For those who wonder why the Republicans seem to be getting a free pass on this one, they're just receiving the benefit of *really* low expectations here - expecting them to start showing concern for their constituents or respect for the Bill of Rights at this point would be the height of foolishness and an utter waste of time.
Daniel Patterson at Daniel's News & Views offers his far more succinct take on the situation here.
ACLU press release here.
Good night.
In addition to the immunity provision (Title II of the bill) it allows the government to "initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost." (AP)
AZ delegation votes: Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Mitchell, Giffords, Flake - yea; Pastor, Grijalva - nay.
I suppose I could expound at length on why this was a horrible move, but it's late, I'm tired, and work starts early tomorrow, so let me sum up -
To Congressman Harry Mitchell, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the 103 other Democrats who joined the entire Republican caucus (excepting Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois, who, for some unknown reason, voted against the measure) in supporting the bill that George Bush wanted:
1. One of the rationalizations given to support this bill was that it was "necessary" in order to ensure the safety of Americans. The only problem with that story is that it is put forth by the President and his lackeys, who, as evidenced by the testimony on Friday by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, lie the way that normal people breathe, and have been doing so for nearly eight years.
2. Some of you might say that it was necessary to compromise to get the FISA update passed. Perhaps it was, but when the President gets everything that he wanted, it isn't "compromise," it's "surrender."
3. Each and every one of you should remember that you were elected to work for your constituents' best interests, not the President's. In no way does retroactive immunity for telecoms or decreased judicial oversight of Administration activities benefit your constituents.
'Nuff said.
For those who wonder why the Republicans seem to be getting a free pass on this one, they're just receiving the benefit of *really* low expectations here - expecting them to start showing concern for their constituents or respect for the Bill of Rights at this point would be the height of foolishness and an utter waste of time.
Daniel Patterson at Daniel's News & Views offers his far more succinct take on the situation here.
ACLU press release here.
Good night.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Whew - got scared there for a minute
Here I was, all prepared to write a post criticizing the Democrats in Congress for passing H.R. 6074, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The bill passed by a 324 - 84 margin (Giffords, Mitchell, Pastor, Grijalva - yea; Franks, Flake, Renzi, Shadegg - nay).
The reason for my intended criticism was not based on the language in the bill, but on some of the press coverage, which calls the bill a move to allow the U.S. to sue OPEC over high gas prices.
AP coverage here; TimesOnline coverage here; AFR coverage here.
The coverage gives the impression that in an era of record-breaking oil prices, and equally record-breaking oil company profits, that Congress has determined that the best solution is to take foreign nations to court.
Assuming that those nations would even bother to face the U.S. in court, given the low regard for international law that is typically exhibited by the U.S. government.
The U.S. government only participates in that process when it suits them - why should any other country behave any differently when it is the U.S. initiating the proceedings?
Based on the MSM coverage, I thought that the bill was pointless and insipid, and reeked of a little election year pandering, and that's always worthy of criticism.
I was sitting at my keyboard, profoundly disappointed in my fellow Democrats, and when the White House threatened a veto of the legislation, I was worried that my agreement with that position might indicate that I'd hit my head, come down with some sort of mental illness, or just plain had my soul sucked out of me.
Then I read the actual language of the bill, and was greatly relieved to find the real teeth of the measure.
The section goes on to delineate some of the areas of interest of the Task Force, including looking for price gouging, market manipulation, anti-competitive behavior, collusive behavior and more.
And it isn't restricted to international cartels and the like. Specifically included are petroleum refiners and wholesalers of gasoline and petroleum products.
In short, the oil companies themselves are in the crosshairs of this bill.
Which thoroughly explains why the White House and the four Republican members of Arizona's delegation so thoroughly oppose the bill.
The "I'm not totally naive" caveats -
It *is* an election year, and I'm fully aware that many of the Democratic supporters of this bill did so to take advantage of the anti-OPEC nature (aka - the "anti-foreigner" nature) of the bill. It's always easier to blame an amorphous "them" for our problems than to tell voters that they might bear some of the responsibility for the creation of and the ultimate solution for the current mess.
In addition, I'm fully aware of the fact that many of the Republicans who supported the bill did so with the full knowledge that it will never become law, either because of a veto they won't vote to override, or because it will die in the Senate.
While this move has some merit (holding Big Oil's feet to the fire is always a good thing), how about an effort to not just wean the U.S. off of *foreign* oil (which is just Republican-speak for "let's destroy ANWR"), but to wean us off of petroleum in general.
Supporting efforts to create something other than the internal combustion engine to power our transportation infrastructure would be a good start, no matter how much Big Oil and Big Auto scream about it.
The reason for my intended criticism was not based on the language in the bill, but on some of the press coverage, which calls the bill a move to allow the U.S. to sue OPEC over high gas prices.
AP coverage here; TimesOnline coverage here; AFR coverage here.
The coverage gives the impression that in an era of record-breaking oil prices, and equally record-breaking oil company profits, that Congress has determined that the best solution is to take foreign nations to court.
Assuming that those nations would even bother to face the U.S. in court, given the low regard for international law that is typically exhibited by the U.S. government.
The U.S. government only participates in that process when it suits them - why should any other country behave any differently when it is the U.S. initiating the proceedings?
Based on the MSM coverage, I thought that the bill was pointless and insipid, and reeked of a little election year pandering, and that's always worthy of criticism.
I was sitting at my keyboard, profoundly disappointed in my fellow Democrats, and when the White House threatened a veto of the legislation, I was worried that my agreement with that position might indicate that I'd hit my head, come down with some sort of mental illness, or just plain had my soul sucked out of me.
Then I read the actual language of the bill, and was greatly relieved to find the real teeth of the measure.
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ANTITRUST TASK FORCE.
The section goes on to delineate some of the areas of interest of the Task Force, including looking for price gouging, market manipulation, anti-competitive behavior, collusive behavior and more.
And it isn't restricted to international cartels and the like. Specifically included are petroleum refiners and wholesalers of gasoline and petroleum products.
In short, the oil companies themselves are in the crosshairs of this bill.
Which thoroughly explains why the White House and the four Republican members of Arizona's delegation so thoroughly oppose the bill.
The "I'm not totally naive" caveats -
It *is* an election year, and I'm fully aware that many of the Democratic supporters of this bill did so to take advantage of the anti-OPEC nature (aka - the "anti-foreigner" nature) of the bill. It's always easier to blame an amorphous "them" for our problems than to tell voters that they might bear some of the responsibility for the creation of and the ultimate solution for the current mess.
In addition, I'm fully aware of the fact that many of the Republicans who supported the bill did so with the full knowledge that it will never become law, either because of a veto they won't vote to override, or because it will die in the Senate.
While this move has some merit (holding Big Oil's feet to the fire is always a good thing), how about an effort to not just wean the U.S. off of *foreign* oil (which is just Republican-speak for "let's destroy ANWR"), but to wean us off of petroleum in general.
Supporting efforts to create something other than the internal combustion engine to power our transportation infrastructure would be a good start, no matter how much Big Oil and Big Auto scream about it.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
House Republicans abdicate their professional responsibilities
Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass part of H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008. The part that they failed to pass was the part provided supplemental funding for Bush's occupation of Iraq.
I call today's move a "failure" not because I support continuing to pay for Bush's war, but because the bill wasn't defeated (though much of the MSM coverage will paint it as such), but because the Republicans basically didn't show up.
The final vote - 141 in favor, 149 opposed, 132 present.
All 132 members of the House refusing to take a stand on one of the biggest issues facing our nation today by voting present were Republicans.
As evidenced by the split in the Democratic caucus (85 yeas, 147 nays), this is an issue that deeply divides the country; the Republicans' refusal to take a stand, any stand (even one I disagree with!) nearly constitutes en masse job abandonment.
And 'job abandonment' is grounds for termination of employment.
See you in November.
By the way - the part of the measure that they failed to take a stand on is the part of the bill that would have ensured that there is money to continue paying the troops after June 15.
Can't wait to see how they spin that into "support for the troops."
Other details of today's votes -
The vote split among the Democratic members of Arizona's Congressional delegation reflected the split among the whole caucus - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) voted yea; Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) voted nay,
Among the Republicans from Arizona, only Rick Renzi (R-AZ1) took a stand, voting yea. John Shadegg (R-AZ3), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) all sat on their hands.
A second part of the bill that establishes a timeline for withdrawal passed 227 - 196, with Arizona's delegation splitting along party line - Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed.
The third and final section of the bill, containing some domestic spending such as the new G.I. Bill and unemployment relief, passed 256 - 166, with Democrats Grijalva, Giffords, Mitchell and Pastor, and Republican Renzi supporting, and Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg opposing.
Note: there is an expectation that the Senate will restore the funding portion of the bill and return it to the House for another vote.
Note2: Bush has threatened to veto any supplemental bill that includes any restrictions or timelines (he's not too fond of education benefits for veterans, either.)
The Hill's coverage here.
AP coverage here.
Later!
I call today's move a "failure" not because I support continuing to pay for Bush's war, but because the bill wasn't defeated (though much of the MSM coverage will paint it as such), but because the Republicans basically didn't show up.
The final vote - 141 in favor, 149 opposed, 132 present.
All 132 members of the House refusing to take a stand on one of the biggest issues facing our nation today by voting present were Republicans.
As evidenced by the split in the Democratic caucus (85 yeas, 147 nays), this is an issue that deeply divides the country; the Republicans' refusal to take a stand, any stand (even one I disagree with!) nearly constitutes en masse job abandonment.
And 'job abandonment' is grounds for termination of employment.
See you in November.
By the way - the part of the measure that they failed to take a stand on is the part of the bill that would have ensured that there is money to continue paying the troops after June 15.
Can't wait to see how they spin that into "support for the troops."
Other details of today's votes -
The vote split among the Democratic members of Arizona's Congressional delegation reflected the split among the whole caucus - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) voted yea; Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) voted nay,
Among the Republicans from Arizona, only Rick Renzi (R-AZ1) took a stand, voting yea. John Shadegg (R-AZ3), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) all sat on their hands.
A second part of the bill that establishes a timeline for withdrawal passed 227 - 196, with Arizona's delegation splitting along party line - Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed.
The third and final section of the bill, containing some domestic spending such as the new G.I. Bill and unemployment relief, passed 256 - 166, with Democrats Grijalva, Giffords, Mitchell and Pastor, and Republican Renzi supporting, and Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg opposing.
Note: there is an expectation that the Senate will restore the funding portion of the bill and return it to the House for another vote.
Note2: Bush has threatened to veto any supplemental bill that includes any restrictions or timelines (he's not too fond of education benefits for veterans, either.)
The Hill's coverage here.
AP coverage here.
Later!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Quarterly FEC Reports Are Pouring In...
They're not all into the FEC yet, so I'll update over the next few days.
The quarterly numbers so far -
CD1 (open seat)
Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).
Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).
Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).
Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.
Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.
Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).
Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).
CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.
CD2
Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.
CD3
Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.
Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.
Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.
Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)
From a Lord press release -
CD4
Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.
CD5
Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.
Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.
Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.
Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.
CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.
Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.
Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.
CD6
Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.
CD7
Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.
CD8
Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.
Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.
The quarterly numbers so far -
CD1 (open seat)
Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).
Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).
Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).
Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.
Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.
Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).
Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).
CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.
CD2
Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.
CD3
Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.
Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.
Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.
Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)
From a Lord press release -
“We could not have come this far or raised this much without the support of the over 1,000 Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who have contributed to my campaign,” Lord said. “I’d like to thank everyone for their continued support. We will change Washington – together.”
CD4
Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.
CD5
Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.
Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.
Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.
Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.
CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.
Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.
Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.
CD6
Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.
CD7
Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.
CD8
Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.
Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Short Attention Span Musing
...Apparently, they've pretty much cleaned out the U.S. Treasury, so now the Republicans are reduced to ripping off themselves...
From The Hill -
From his speech to the Economic Club of New York (speaking on the mortgage foreclosure crisis) -
Median U.S. home price, 2007 - $246,900 (Census Bureau); Median U.S. houshold income, 2006 - $48, 201 (also Census Bureau)
Bear Stearns' stockholder equity as of November 30, 2007 - approximately $11.8 billion (Yahoo! Finance); 2006 compensation of Bear Stearns (then-) CEO James Cayne - $28.4 million (Forbes.com).
...Trent Franks, the cutting edge Republican Congressman - if this was 25 years ago...
I don't have a link yet (it's too soon for today's floor speeches to be in the Congressional Record), but Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ2), threw everybody a curveball today. Instead of his normal 5-minute rant against a woman's right to choose to control her own medical decisions, he stood in the well of the House and expressed support for the President's national defense program.
However, the President in question was Ronald Reagan, and the defense program in question was the ballistic missile shield, the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka - Star Wars.
What's next, Congressman Franks? Criticizing the Mary Tyler Moore for provocatively wearing capri pants on the Dick Van Dyke Show??
End Arizona's embarrassment - Thrasher for Congress.
Hope to see some of you tomorrow at ASU!
From The Hill -
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) said Thursday that former Treasurer Chris Ward apparently funneled several hundred thousand dollars to his personal and business bank accounts from the committee’s funds....Apparently, Bush Administration is making a run at a Sunday Morning Crappie award (or a Sunday Morning Deck Bass, or a Sunday Eel Pout), not even waiting a day between a flip and a flop; at the very least,...
The transfers caused the committee to severely over-report its cash-on-hand totals in recent financial reports.
From his speech to the Economic Club of New York (speaking on the mortgage foreclosure crisis) -
I want to talk to you about a couple of ideas that I strongly reject. First, one bill in Congress would provide $4 billion for state and local governments to buy up abandoned and foreclosed homes. You know, I guess this sounds like a good idea to some, but if your goal is to help Americans keep their homes, it doesn't make any sense to spend billions of dollars buying up homes that are already empty.From Business Week -
Bear's stock was in a free fall Mar. 14—hitting an 11-year low—following the news that JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and the New York Federal Reserve had stepped in with an emergency cash bailout for the New York-based investment firm.For those of you who aren't sure of why Bear Stearns gets a helping hand, and the average American gets a backhand -
Median U.S. home price, 2007 - $246,900 (Census Bureau); Median U.S. houshold income, 2006 - $48, 201 (also Census Bureau)
Bear Stearns' stockholder equity as of November 30, 2007 - approximately $11.8 billion (Yahoo! Finance); 2006 compensation of Bear Stearns (then-) CEO James Cayne - $28.4 million (Forbes.com).
...Trent Franks, the cutting edge Republican Congressman - if this was 25 years ago...
I don't have a link yet (it's too soon for today's floor speeches to be in the Congressional Record), but Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ2), threw everybody a curveball today. Instead of his normal 5-minute rant against a woman's right to choose to control her own medical decisions, he stood in the well of the House and expressed support for the President's national defense program.
However, the President in question was Ronald Reagan, and the defense program in question was the ballistic missile shield, the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka - Star Wars.
What's next, Congressman Franks? Criticizing the Mary Tyler Moore for provocatively wearing capri pants on the Dick Van Dyke Show??
End Arizona's embarrassment - Thrasher for Congress.
Hope to see some of you tomorrow at ASU!
Thank you Harry...
Earlier today, in spite of Republican tactics that reeked of hysteria, grandstanding, and attempts to baldly intimidate them, Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) and 212 other Democrats approved the House version of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
The House version did not include the main clause that the President and the other Republicans in D.C. wanted, the one that retroactively granted immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping in the past.
The final vote was 213 - 197, 1 voting 'present.' The voting in the Arizona delegation fell along party lines - Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Pastor, and Mitchell voting 'yea'; Republicans Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg voting 'nay.'
Last August, I criticized Harry Mitchell and the Blue Dogs for voting for a very bad bill, one that didn't require judicial oversight of electronic surveillance; it's only fair that I compliment him and them (mostly, anyway - 12 Dems crossed over today) now.
They've earned it.
Washington Post coverage of today's vote here.
WaPo coverage of President Bush's remarks on the topic yesterday here (summary: he says that he will veto any bill without immunity.)
White House statement on today's vote here.
ACLU statement on today's vote here.
Later!
The House version did not include the main clause that the President and the other Republicans in D.C. wanted, the one that retroactively granted immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping in the past.
The final vote was 213 - 197, 1 voting 'present.' The voting in the Arizona delegation fell along party lines - Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Pastor, and Mitchell voting 'yea'; Republicans Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg voting 'nay.'
Last August, I criticized Harry Mitchell and the Blue Dogs for voting for a very bad bill, one that didn't require judicial oversight of electronic surveillance; it's only fair that I compliment him and them (mostly, anyway - 12 Dems crossed over today) now.
They've earned it.
Washington Post coverage of today's vote here.
WaPo coverage of President Bush's remarks on the topic yesterday here (summary: he says that he will veto any bill without immunity.)
White House statement on today's vote here.
ACLU statement on today's vote here.
Later!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Arizona earns another low rating when it comes to protecting children
This time, it's the state's Congressional delegation that has let children down.
The Children's Defense Fund Action Council has released its 2007 Congressional scorecard. The scoring was based on 10 key votes each in the House and Senate (the list of votes was slightly different for each chamber.)
Arizona's delegation ended up tied for 44th with Louisiana's.
Hey - at least we beat Nebraska, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
On the other hand, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi beat us, and that's not exactly something to brag about.
By comparison, my old home state of Massachusetts ranked 3rd, with an average score of 97%; the only negative marks were due to absences, not bad votes.
As could be expected, the Arizona delegation split along party lines -
In the House, Democrats Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva each scored 100%, Gabrielle Giffords 80%, and Harry Mitchell 60%.
On the Republican side, Rick Renzi scored 60%, Trent Franks and John Shadegg scored 10%, and the ever-reliable Jeff Flake earned a big ol' goose egg (he's like Mikey from the Life cereal commercial - he hates *everything.*)
It seems that John Shadegg's 'expertise' on health care doesn't extend to healthy children, only healthy corporate bottom lines. As for Trent Franks, apparently his concern for children stops once they are born.
As for Renzi's 60%, well, you knew that there had to be a real reason that a Republican U.S. Attorney pursued an indictment of a Republican Congressman - I mean, there was no way a Bush appointee would go after a Republican for simple extortion and fraud, right?
:))
And as for Harry Mitchell's 60%, I supposed he can take heart in the high-wattage company he's keeping - Nancy Pelosi was also at 60%, Joe Biden was at 50%, Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 70%.
Over in the Senate, Jon Kyl scored at 30% and John McCain earned a 10%.
Of course, given that McCain missed 8 of the 10 key votes, maybe his grade should be 'Incomplete.' However, according to the 2006 Scorecard, he made all of the 10 key votes that year, and scored a resounding
10%.
Come November, that's something that parents all over the state might want to think about before they cast a 'favorite son' vote in the general election.
Later!
The Children's Defense Fund Action Council has released its 2007 Congressional scorecard. The scoring was based on 10 key votes each in the House and Senate (the list of votes was slightly different for each chamber.)
Arizona's delegation ended up tied for 44th with Louisiana's.
Hey - at least we beat Nebraska, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
On the other hand, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi beat us, and that's not exactly something to brag about.
By comparison, my old home state of Massachusetts ranked 3rd, with an average score of 97%; the only negative marks were due to absences, not bad votes.
As could be expected, the Arizona delegation split along party lines -
In the House, Democrats Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva each scored 100%, Gabrielle Giffords 80%, and Harry Mitchell 60%.
On the Republican side, Rick Renzi scored 60%, Trent Franks and John Shadegg scored 10%, and the ever-reliable Jeff Flake earned a big ol' goose egg (he's like Mikey from the Life cereal commercial - he hates *everything.*)
It seems that John Shadegg's 'expertise' on health care doesn't extend to healthy children, only healthy corporate bottom lines. As for Trent Franks, apparently his concern for children stops once they are born.
As for Renzi's 60%, well, you knew that there had to be a real reason that a Republican U.S. Attorney pursued an indictment of a Republican Congressman - I mean, there was no way a Bush appointee would go after a Republican for simple extortion and fraud, right?
:))
And as for Harry Mitchell's 60%, I supposed he can take heart in the high-wattage company he's keeping - Nancy Pelosi was also at 60%, Joe Biden was at 50%, Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 70%.
Over in the Senate, Jon Kyl scored at 30% and John McCain earned a 10%.
Of course, given that McCain missed 8 of the 10 key votes, maybe his grade should be 'Incomplete.' However, according to the 2006 Scorecard, he made all of the 10 key votes that year, and scored a resounding
10%.
Come November, that's something that parents all over the state might want to think about before they cast a 'favorite son' vote in the general election.
Later!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Priorities Of House Republicans -
1. Retroactive telecom immunity.
2. Failing that, heavily armed communities.
Not a priority -
1. Public housing.
Today, the House debated H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. According to a summary from the Congressional Research Service, the bill concerns a number of rules regulating public housing authority (PHA) management and PHA asset management.
The fun part was when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) moved to recommit the bill to the Financial Services Committee with instructions to amend the bill by substituting to become S. 2248, the FISA amendments bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that participated in George Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans program.
That motion was determined to be out of order because the proposed amendment wasn't relevant to the underlying bill. Rep. Smith moved to appeal the chair's ruling to the whole House; the whole House voted to table the appeal by a vote of 218 - 195, with the Reps voting mostly along party lines. (AZ delegation: Pastor, Mitchell, Grijalva - Yea; Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Flake, and Giffords - Nay)
After that, under the rules of the House, the Republicans could still make a motion to recommit, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) did so.
Her motion included instructions "inserting provisions that state that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not accept as reasonable any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement or other similar agreement that requires the registration of or prohibits the possession of any firearm that is possessed by an individual for his or her personal protection or for sport the possession of which is not prohibited, or the registration of which is not required, by existing law."
Further proceedings on that motion, as well as the underlying bill, were postponed (not sure why yet.)
Nice to see that even with a week off to think about the error of their ways, the House Republicans still place corporate interests and ideological purity above human interest.
Wonder who they're going to blame when they have their butts handed to them in November? Undocumented immigrants?
...Oh wait - undocumented immigrants don't vote.
It should be noted that after regular legislative business was completed that Trent Franks (R-AZ2) took to the floor of the House to talk about the significant issue of the day.
Which, given that it was Trent Franks speaking, of course that issue was abortion.
Later!
2. Failing that, heavily armed communities.
Not a priority -
1. Public housing.
Today, the House debated H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. According to a summary from the Congressional Research Service, the bill concerns a number of rules regulating public housing authority (PHA) management and PHA asset management.
The fun part was when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) moved to recommit the bill to the Financial Services Committee with instructions to amend the bill by substituting to become S. 2248, the FISA amendments bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that participated in George Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans program.
That motion was determined to be out of order because the proposed amendment wasn't relevant to the underlying bill. Rep. Smith moved to appeal the chair's ruling to the whole House; the whole House voted to table the appeal by a vote of 218 - 195, with the Reps voting mostly along party lines. (AZ delegation: Pastor, Mitchell, Grijalva - Yea; Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Flake, and Giffords - Nay)
After that, under the rules of the House, the Republicans could still make a motion to recommit, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) did so.
Her motion included instructions "inserting provisions that state that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not accept as reasonable any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement or other similar agreement that requires the registration of or prohibits the possession of any firearm that is possessed by an individual for his or her personal protection or for sport the possession of which is not prohibited, or the registration of which is not required, by existing law."
Further proceedings on that motion, as well as the underlying bill, were postponed (not sure why yet.)
Nice to see that even with a week off to think about the error of their ways, the House Republicans still place corporate interests and ideological purity above human interest.
Wonder who they're going to blame when they have their butts handed to them in November? Undocumented immigrants?
...Oh wait - undocumented immigrants don't vote.
It should be noted that after regular legislative business was completed that Trent Franks (R-AZ2) took to the floor of the House to talk about the significant issue of the day.
Which, given that it was Trent Franks speaking, of course that issue was abortion.
Later!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Three Amigos Ride Again...
Yesterday, the House of Representatives considered overriding the President's veto of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The Act would have renewed and expanded SCHIP, the program that provides health insurance coverage for poor children.
The attempt to override the veto failed by a 260 - 152 vote, 2/3 required to override the veto.
Naturally, being loyal Republicans all, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), John Shadegg (R-AZ3), and Trent Franks (R-AZ2) voted to sustain the President's veto; according to the tenets of their ideology, the profits of private insurers are more important than poor children.
While none of the three could be bothered to speak on the House floor in support of children, or even to defend their support of the President's veto, the ever-consistent Trent Franks did have time to stroll to the floor of the House and insert a statement into the record bemoaning...
...the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. (p. E71 of the Congressional Record).
Nice to see that he still stops worrying about the welfare of children once they're born.
..Update - few days ago, I wrote a post noting John Shadegg's conspicuous absence while his constituents in Paradise Valley dealt with TCE-contaminated tap water.
Later, DownWithTyranny in California found him campaigning for John McCain in South Carolina. (Thanks for the update DWT!)
So, let's see where Shadegg's priorities lie -
1. Defend his conduct in circumventing campaign finance laws.
2. Traipse around South Carolina in winter.
3. Vote to screw over poor children and protect insurance company profits.
4. Join a court motion to stop a lawsuit over the 'under God' reference in the Pledge of Allegiance.
- Work for his constituents.
There's no number for that last because there's no evidence that he *ever* works for his constituents; hence, there's no way to quantify where that falls on his list of priorities.
...x4mr has a post on the SCHIP override vote here; Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona has one here.
Later!
The attempt to override the veto failed by a 260 - 152 vote, 2/3 required to override the veto.
Naturally, being loyal Republicans all, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), John Shadegg (R-AZ3), and Trent Franks (R-AZ2) voted to sustain the President's veto; according to the tenets of their ideology, the profits of private insurers are more important than poor children.
While none of the three could be bothered to speak on the House floor in support of children, or even to defend their support of the President's veto, the ever-consistent Trent Franks did have time to stroll to the floor of the House and insert a statement into the record bemoaning...
...the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. (p. E71 of the Congressional Record).
Nice to see that he still stops worrying about the welfare of children once they're born.
..Update - few days ago, I wrote a post noting John Shadegg's conspicuous absence while his constituents in Paradise Valley dealt with TCE-contaminated tap water.
Later, DownWithTyranny in California found him campaigning for John McCain in South Carolina. (Thanks for the update DWT!)
So, let's see where Shadegg's priorities lie -
1. Defend his conduct in circumventing campaign finance laws.
2. Traipse around South Carolina in winter.
3. Vote to screw over poor children and protect insurance company profits.
4. Join a court motion to stop a lawsuit over the 'under God' reference in the Pledge of Allegiance.
- Work for his constituents.
There's no number for that last because there's no evidence that he *ever* works for his constituents; hence, there's no way to quantify where that falls on his list of priorities.
...x4mr has a post on the SCHIP override vote here; Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona has one here.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)