Arizona's week in Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoooo hoooo!!!

:)

Anyway, back to the boring stuff...

On Friday, the House started on actual legislative business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't bet on it.

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

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

Later...

Letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell

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

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

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

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

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

Our Congressfolks and their contact pages -

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

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

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


Later!

Best and worst bargains - 2008 elections

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

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

Still geeky and dry, but different. :))

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

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

Best Bargain - AZ Congressional races

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

Worst Bargain - AZ Congressional races

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

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

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


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

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

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

Best Bargain - Maricopa County races

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

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

Worst Bargain - Maricopa County races

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Comparison purposes -

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

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

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

There is life after losing an election.

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

Other campaign and campaign finance news -

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

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

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

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

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

Later...

Time for some 2010 speculations...

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

A couple of caveats -

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

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

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

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


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

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


State Superintendent of Public Instruction -

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

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


State Treasurer - No clue here. At all.


Attorney General -

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

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


Secretary of State -

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

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

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


Governor -

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

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


Arizona Corporation Commission (2 seats) -

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


U.S. Senate -

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

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

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


U.S. Congress -

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

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


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



Later!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Not substance.

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

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

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

Access the entire report card here.

Later!

Congressman Mitchell's response to the letter on the bailout

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

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

The Congressman's response, via email -

Dear [cpmaz]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, inaction would cripple our economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

HEM/jw

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

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

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

Later!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Later...

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...

Headlines...

Still have the whole "short attention span" thing going on...

Today, though, it seems to be combined with a fascination with betting... :)


...From AZCentral.com -

Gunman suspected of shooting 3 apologizes to 'innocent' victims

The 22-year-old Phoenix man suspected of shooting three people at South Mountain Community College confessed and apologized to victims Friday during his initial court appearance.

Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes a Republican legislator to use Thursday's incident at SMCC as justification to propose another "guns in schools" bill?


...From AP -

Pa. teens charged in fatal beating of immigrant

PORT CARBON, Pa. (AP) — Three white teens were charged Friday in what officials said was an epithet-filled fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant in a small northeast Pennsylvania coal town. Brandon J. Piekarsky, 16, and Colin J. Walsh, 17, were charged as adults with homicide and ethnic intimidation in the July 12 attack on Luis Ramirez.

Assuming that the defendants and their families seek donations to pay for their legal fees, anyone want to start a pool on how much money they receive from the Pearce/Ready/Childress crowd here in AZ?


From AP -

It's the law: No sagging pants in Chicago suburb

LYNWOOD, Ill. (AP) — Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.

Anybody want in on a pool based on the number of Lynwood cops signing up for their new "Ruler Patrol"? I've got dibs on "0"... :)


From Politicker.com -

Arizona Dems use Heller's statement in ad knocking Republican incumbent

The Arizona Democratic Party has released an Internet video ripping U.S. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), and the ad's main message comes from Republican Congressman Dean Heller (R-Carson City).

The video features a photo of Heller with remarks he made earlier this month to the Las Vegas Review Journal, saying the 1994 GOP Congressional freshman — famous for seizing the U.S. House from Democrats for the first time in decades — had been changed by the culture in Washington.

Anyone want in on a pool on how loudly Shadegg tells Heller to "shut the Heller up! Bob Lord doesn't need your help!"? (Sorry - couldn't resist that one. :)) )

Note: the full video is at the Politicker link.


...And in the "certain to generate headlines" department, according to next week's House schedule (courtesy The Weekly Leader from Steny Hoyer's office), the House will be considering H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill would accord women faced with gender discrimination some of the same legal remedies available to victims of racial discrimination (think: lawsuits for both compensatory and punitive damages). The bill passed the House Education and Labor Committee this week on a party-line vote after Republicans trotted out "trial lawyers" and "gas prices" as among the reasons that they opposed the bill. (Workforce Management)

Anybody want to bet against more of the same when the bill reaches the House floor on Thursday or Friday?

Didn't think so. Hell, they'll probably add "ANWR," "offshore drilling," and "terrorism" to the list just to spice things up. :))

Democratic press release on the bill here.

Republican press release on the bill here.

Note: all four Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation - Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - are among the 230 cosponsors of the bill.


...Finally, in a 'non-headline' item, the AZ Republic has posted the responses to its candidate questionnaires online here. The list of respondents is incomplete. In some cases, it's obvious by the presence of one or another opponent in a given race that some candidates were asked but simply didn't respond. In other cases, there is only one unchallenged contender so they may not have even been asked to complete a questionnaire.

Later!

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!

Thank you, Senate Republicans

This is the second, less gentle, smack talk post (I meant to do this over the weekend, but work sort of intruded... :) )


...In the waning hours of this year's legislative session, the Arizona Chapter of the Flat Earth Society caved in the Center for Arizona Policy and the other ideological bullies in their party when they voted to send a ban on same-sex marriage to November's ballot.


All sorts of legislative arm-twisting, shenanigans, and outright rule-breaking were used to bring the measure to the floor and force its passage and referral to the fall ballot.


Let's be clear on one thing - the measure is spiteful, petty, and vindictive and should be opposed by anyone with a moral center, a shred of humanity, and a soul.



Having said all that, there's a silver lining to Friday's debacle.



They've now thoroughly pissed off and motivated a voting bloc that overwhelmingly votes Democratic.



The heretofore fairly well-behaved wingers in the lege, or at least heretofore ineffective (more on that point in a moment), hadn't done much harm this session.


Lots of preening and posturing could be seen, and bellowing and bloviatingcould be heard, but they never could quite muster the votes necessary to push their anti-everything agenda of ballot measures (doing an end-run around the Governor's veto pen).

Unlike, say, in 2006, when they placed 8 measures on that fall's ballot, most of which were of the anti-immigrant or anti-education. Note: Prop 107, the anti-same sex marriage measure on the ballot that year, was placed there by initiative petition.


Guess it was easier this time around to get 16 Senators and 35 Representatives to sign on rather than go out and gather >230,000 signatures. Probably cheaper, too - they spent more than $1,000,000 in 2006.


Of course, that election in 2006 with the anti-same sex marriage question is the same election that brought some voices of sanity to the lege, leading to, or at least contributing to, the wingers' ineffectiveness in 2007 and 2008.

There just wasn't quite enough of them to work their hate with their usual glib, saccharin-tongued ease.

As evidenced by Friday's vote in the Senate, they still have some sway in the lege, but it's much less than in sessions past, and they had to work a *lot* harder to wield the influence they had remaining.



To sum up, they've motivated the Democratic Party base and a large bloc of independent voters in Arizona to a degree not seen since...

2006, the last really bad year for Republicans in AZ.



If Barack Obama actually beats McCain in AZ, or if the Dems take control of one or both chambers of the state lege, the Reps should look back at the ballot measure and their zeal and ruthlessness in railroading it through when parceling out the blame.



While I won't predict either of those outcomes at this time (still too much of an uphill battle for the lege), I do have one prediction - while the CD8 campaigns will play out over the summer and into the fall, for all practical purposes, Tim Bee's quest to unseat Gabrielle Giffords is over.


In CD8, only a relatively moderate Republican like Jim Kolbe has a chance of winning (not that Kolbe was actually a moderate) but with his behavior in railroading through SCR1042, Tim Bee has painted himelf as being an extremeist a la Randy Graf.

11 of the 16 Senators who voted for SCR1042 are facing general election challenges (a couple are termed out, one is facing only a primary challenge, or two are totally unchallenged in their quests for reelection). All of their challengers deserve support, but none more so than Robert Boehlke, the Democratic challenger to Jack Harper in LD4. Tim Bee may have been the conductor on this railroad, but Harper was the engineer driving the train.

Harper's a complete tool, brazen ideological thug and utter loon, which would be fine if he only impacted his own district (then it would a problem for the voters there, not the rest of us).

Unfortunately, he's hurting the entire state now, and deserves to be turned out of office.

What they did wasn't just petulant, it abominable. However, it may not be the end of the world - a measure that was put on the ballot to raise their own voter turnout may have an even stronger effect on the turnout of Democrats and Independents.

Pico at Wild Chihuahas has some great coverage on this issue.

Later!

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 -

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.

Tim Bee - is it bipartisanship or bullying?...

Tim Bee likes to tout his willingness to work with Democrats (check out the 'About' page on his campaign website, under the heading 'Statesman'), but it looks as if his bipartisanship is limited to situations where he doesn't have any choice, like getting a state budget passed. Without the OKs of Governor Napolitano and the Democrats in the lege, he wouldn't be able to say "Tim put policy and people above politics working with Republicans, Democrats, and the Governor to create a responsible budget" on his website.

Whether it is situations where he illegally suppresses debate because a bill or amendment sponsored by a Democrat might actually pass (AZCentral.com coverage here) or simply abandoning his duties for the week after one minute's worth of "work" on Wednesday, when left to his own devices, he shows his true colors as nothing more than a rabidly partisan and profoundly petty tyrant.

That was clearly illustrated on Friday.

On Tuesday, June 3, the Senate Democrats will be holding a public forum on the mortgage crisis and how it's affecting Arizona. In preparation for that event, they asked that champion of bipartisanship himself for permission to use a Senate hearing room to hold the event.

And in his usual spirit of bipartisan civility, Bee refused such permission unless State Sens. Pamela Gorman and John Huppenthal were given major roles in the forum. (PolitickerAZ coverage here; R-Cubed coverage here)

Like Bee, Gorman and Huppenthal are among the most reliably conservative (aka - pro-business and anti-consumer) members of the Senate. If the Democrats had given in to his demand, they would have derailed the forum.

Instead of surrendering to Bee's bullying, they spoke to the Governor's office.

Turns out the Governor is more interesting in addressing Arizona's mortgage crisis than Tim Bee or the Republicans in the Senate.

The forum has been moved to the 2nd floor conference room of State Capitol Executive Tower (4 p.m. - 6 p.m.)

Slade Mead over at The Dry Heat has the scoop that part of Bee's (and the Senate's) problem is that Bee hasn't been able to focus on his duties in the Senate (like seeing that a balanced budget is passed, like, before the end of the fiscal year) because he is running for Congress.

Does Senator Bee realize that when he screws up here in metro Phoenix, voters in Tucson hear about it? They don't even have to wait for the pony express to come in with the latest dispatches from the Republican Party headquarters anymore - many of them have radios or telephones. Some are even hooked up to a complicated series of tubes called the internets....

:))

Anyway, somebody should tell Bee that every time he sacrifices true bipartisanship on the altar of petty gamesmanship, he loses even more ground to Gabrielle Giffords.

Really.

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.

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.

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!

AZ's Democratic Delegation Finalized

At Saturday's meeting of the Democratic State Committee, members selected PLEO (party leader/elected official) and At-Large delegates to this summer's national convention. Some delegates are pledged to Clinton, some to Obama.

The big news of the convention concerned the election of a new 1st Vice-Chair (and automatic superdelegate) of the ADP. Early expectations were that the slot would go to a Clinton supporter, but in a bit of a surprise, Charlene Fernandez, chair of the Yuma County Democratic Party, won the slot after announcing that she supports Sen. Barack Obama for the nomination.

There is an as-yet-unconfirmed rumor (from a state committee member) that one of the Clinton superdelegates may challenge the election of Fernandez. I'll look into this, but if anything comes of it, Tedski will probably have the scoop first (something about him being on the state committee, a brother on the state committee, a mom on the state committee, and so forth :)) ).

The final (pending any challenges) list, courtesy the website of the Arizona Democratic Party (superdelegate endorsement info courtesy PolitickerAZ) -

Uncommitted superdelegates -

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ8)
Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ5)
State Attorney General Terry Goddard
Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party Don Bivens


Clinton delegates

Superdelegates -

Congressman Ed Pastor (AZ4)
Democratic National Committee member Janice C. Brunson
DNC member Joe Rios
DNC member Carolyn Warner

PLEO -

Arizona Sen. Amanda Aguirre
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos
Arizona Democratic Party Vice-Chairman Tony J. Gonzales
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley

At-Large -

Arizona Sen. Ken Cheuvront
Fountain Hills Councilwoman Ginny Dickey
Adam Falk
Katie Hobbs
Michael Incorvaia
Amanda Simpson
Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox

At-Large Alternates -

DNC Member-elect and Arizona Democratic Party secretary Judy Kennedy
Arizona Rep. Robert Meza

District level delegates -

Jack Jackson, Jr.
Greg Kaighn
Dawn Knight
Nikki Basque (alternate)
Bree Boehlke
Debra Boehlke
Robert Boehlke
Matthew Miller (alternate)
Howard Bell
Jim Pederson
Lois Pfau
Lisa White (alternate)
Dana Kennedy
Jose Rivas
Angie Crouse
George Paterakis
Beverly Fox-Miller
Roman Ullman
Elizabeth Brown (alternate)
David Martinez
Gail Beeler
Elly Anderson
Chris Campas
JoJene E. Mills
Bruce Heurlin (alternate)


Obama Delegates

Superdelegates -

Governor Janet Napolitano
Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ7)
ADP 1st Vice Chair Charlene Fernandez

PLEO -

Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned J. Norris
Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez
Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema

At-Large -

Magdalena Barajas
Sen. Dennis DeConcini
Ruben Gallego Arizona
Rep. David Schapira
Brandan Spradling

At-Large Alternate -

Phoenix Councilman Michael Johnson

District level delegates -

Christopher Clark-Dechene
Angela Lefevre
Shirley A. McAllister
Eddie Smith
Mark Manoil
Genevieve M. Vega
David Gass
Katharine Widland
Sean Bowie
Donna M. Gratehouse
Lauren Kuby
James J. Brodie (alternate)
John Chiazza
Kit Filbey
Paul Eckerstrom
Lisa Fernandez
John C. Adams
Patricia L. Canady


Congratulations to everyone, and hope to see you in Denver...

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 -

“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.

Short Attention Span Musing - Congressional Edition

...In the "big" news this week, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Kris Mayes announced that she would not run for the Republican nomination in CD1 (PolitickerAZ).

This may actually help not the other Republicans running, but instead it may aid the Democrats' chances of taking Renzi's seat. While Mayes may be too moderate and too conscientious a public servant to suit the power structure of the Arizona Republican Party, it's precisely those qualities that would have made her a formidable candidate in a general election.

As for the other major Rep candidates, Sydney "my soul is owned by the mining industry" Hay (already in the race) and Ken "broomstick" Bennett (rumored to be entering the race)?? Not so much.

Follow the links - each one has major weaknesses as a candidate, weaknesses that the eventual Democratic nominee will be certain to bring to the attention of CD1's voters.


...Over in CD5, while the Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell were making nice with each other, in an "aww shucks, isn't that cute" sort of way (and taking shots at Democrats in general and Mitchell in particular) on Monday, Mitchell was sponsoring a 21st century version of the GI Bill (H.R. 5740).

No AZ Republicans in Congress signed on as cosponsors of the bill to support post-9/11 veterans.
No Republican challenger in CD5 has issued a statement that they support H.R. 5740 either, and a quick perusal of their campaign websites finds far more support for the war in Iraq than for the servicemen and women fighting and dying in the war.


...In CD3, Republican John Shadegg had a mixed week -

First, he found out that the U.S. Chamber of Congress loves him (no word though on what Paradise Valley thinks of him or if he understands that PV is part of his district, and the US CofC isn't) and he loved them right back - attacking Congressional Democrats for delaying a vote on the Colombia Free Trade deal.

Later in the week, however, his constituents found out that alleged "taxpayer watchdog" Shadegg (as well as CD6's Jeff Flake) has no problem with taking international trips at taxpayer expense.

Then there was the whole "Shadegg was recorded by the FBI on a Renzi wiretap" news, too. :)

Oh, and challenger Bob Lord raised more than $220K during the first quarter and has more than $630K on hand.

All in all, *not* a good week for Congressman Shadegg.


...Of course, while Shadegg's week fell into the "not good" category, the week of Tim Bee, Republican challenger to Gabrielle Giffords in CD8 had an "absolutely lousy" week.

Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion broke the story of a taxpayer-funded campaign...errr...'thank-you' ad for Bee. In his update on the original post, Tedski found that the source of the funding for the TV spot was a bunch of school districts and that the ad aired not in his legislative district, but in CD8. Hmmm...

Now that the DCCC has filed a complaint over the spot, Bee may learn the hard way that he's trying to step up to the big leagues.

Part of that lesson will be understanding that the FEC is going to hammer him for stuff that AZ's Secretary of State Jan Brewer would turn a blind eye to (at least for fellow Republicans, anyway.)


Later!

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!

Fear and Smear: The Republican Campaign To Regain Control Of Congress Has Begun

By now, we've all seen the ads targeting Harry Mitchell as well as Gabrielle Giffords and other freshman Dems in the House.

You know, the spots that open with ominous music then slickly warns folks that the law that allows the U.S. government to eavesdrop on terrorists has expired because the House didn't vote on and approve the Senate-passed expansion of the FISA act. It then goes on to recommend that viewers to call their Congressional representative and urge them to pass that Senate-approved bill.

It very effectively plays on viewers' fears.

However, as FactCheck.org documents here, the spot is more than a little light on facts and heavy on misinformation and outright lies.

The biggest lie is also one of the first ones in the piece - FISA, the law that allows for surveillance of foreign terror suspects has *not* expired; only the temporary expansion that was passed last summer has.

Another lie, or at least a misstatement of the truth, is that this is all the House's fault. In fact, the House passed a long-term expansion and update of FISA in November. The Senate is the group that waited until the last minute to pass an amended version.

One that needed to go to conference to resolve the differences. One of those differences is that the Senate version includes retroactive immunity for telecoms while the House version does not include it - and the White House desperately wants it. In fact, they are so desperate that Bush has pledged to veto any bill that does *not* include a retroactive immunity provision.

The spots were created by an extreme right-wing front group named Defense of Democracies. That group is an offshoot of another far-right group, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). The FDD is headed by a former spokesman for the RNC (Clifford May) with directors that include former GOP candidates for president (Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp.)

On its website, the group professes to be "non-partisan" but the spots only target Democrats.

One of those targets, CD5's Harry Mitchell, has weighed in on the topic of the spots and the FISA expansion issue itself in a campaign email -

Dear Friend,

Old Washington politics and special interests are back at it again. And, they are willing to do anything - lie, cheat or steal - to beat me this fall.

You've probably seen the ads on TV, deceptive and sickening ads. I am one of 15 Representatives in the country they are spending millions of dollars on to spread this filth.

I can take a lot of criticism. As an elected official and a leader, I expect it.

But I won't stand by and let someone attack my patriotism. It's my love of this country that compelled me to teach government for so many years and eventually run for office.

I believe in service. I believe in America. And I refuse to be anyone's rubber stamp.

If we are going to infringe on privacy rights because we believe there is a necessary security issue, then we must carefully consider and debate the issue.

This extremist fear machine, funded by some of the most radical elements of the far right, would have you believe that my rational position helps Bin Laden. That's just disgusting.

Let's be clear. These ridiculous accusations are not about a policy or even how I may vote.

This is scaring the American public for one reason - to stop positive changes from happening in Washington, DC.

Enough is enough.

Help out Harry or Gabby - they're going to face tough, nasty, and just plain dirty tactics this year as the Republicans desperately try to retake control of Congress.

As an aside, many Republicans have said that telecoms that allow or facilitate the wiretaps do so out of patriotism.

What they don't say is that corporate patriotism only lasts as long as the bills are paid, as this article (AP via MSNBC) indicates -

Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

{snip}

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found.

The DOJ audit is here.

CrooksandLiars.com's take on the spots here; SourceWatch's wiki on the Foundation here.