Laura Pastor drops out of CD3 race

From AZ Family -

Phoenix councilwoman Laura Pastor drops out of congressional race

One of the leading Democratic names eyed to replace outgoing U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego has dropped out of the race. Gallego is now vying to replace Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s seat.

On Friday, Phoenix councilwoman Laura Pastor announced that she withdrew her name from a lengthy list of contenders, citing health reasons.

This story demonstrates two things:

1. There's a dire need for editors.  Even the two paragraphs/three sentences that I've quoted are poorly written.

"...[V]ying to replace Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s seat"?  Really??  That made it by someone?

2.  It's early.  People can still drop out of or enter races.

Pastor's withdrawal leaves Yassamin Ansari, another member of the Phoenix City Council, and Raquel Teran, a former member of the Arizona Legislature and a former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, as the big "names" currently in the race.

Federal Committee update

Pastor is a current member of the Phoenix City Council.

Aguilar is a current member of the governing board of the Central Arizona Project.

Both are looking to replace Ruben Gallego in Congress, who's running for Senate.

Sawdy is mounting a campaign to replace Republican Debbie Lesko.

O'Donnell is running to replace Republican Juan Ciscomani.

Well, we have the first official Democratic primary for Congress. Actually, we have two.

And it's still early.

On 4/4, Phoenix City Council member Yassamin Ansari formed a committee for a run at replacing Senate candidate Ruben Gallego (D) in CD3.

On 4/5, State Senator and former chair of the AZ Democratic Party (ADP), Raquel Teran formed one for a run at the same seat.

It's widely expected that Laura Pastor will jump into the race, too.

On 4/6, a name who's a bit of blast from the past, former ADP chair and 2012 candidate for Congress, Andrei Cherny formed a committee for a run at the CD1 seat held by ethically challenged R David Schweikert.  He joins current State Rep. and doctor. Amish Shah in the race.

I do expect there to be Democratic primaries in R held districts CD2 (Northern AZ) and CD6 (in Southern AZ), so 2024 should be a popcorn-riffic year.

And I haven't even discussed the many Rs who will run for the U.S. Senate, none of whom has formed a committee as yet.

Psssst. Didja hear the latest rumor?

Just a compilation of some recent political rumors here in AZ...

...The Phoenix Business Journal (and other sources) has been reporting that Arizona Congressman Ed Pastor (D-AZ7) is under consideration for a spot in the President's cabinet as Secretary of Transportation.

From the article, written by Mike Sunnucks -

 

Longtime Phoenix congressman Ed Pastor’s name has popped up as a possible successor to the departing U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

 

That could open up Pastor’s Democratic-leaning and Hispanic-majority district, and there will be no shortage of possible contenders from within his party.

Some of the names of contenders listed in the article:  Mary Rose Wilcox, a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; Laura Pastor, the Congressman's daughter and 2007 candidate for Phoenix City Council; and Phil Gordon, former mayor of Phoenix.  In addition, pretty much every legislator with ties to Central or South Phoenix, or southwestern Maricopa County, is also mentioned.

I don't know if Pastor has a serious chance at the cabinet seat, but if it happens, look for a rugged Democratic primary in the race to fill the seat for the remainder of his term.  Pastor's district is heavily Democratic (the district has slightly less than three times as many Ds as it does Rs), and the winner of the special election will get the inside lane on what should be a safe seat for them for years, maybe decades.

This isn't the first time in recent years Pastor has been the subject of rumors of a possible presidential appointment - at the beginning of Barack Obama's first term in the White House, Pastor was talked about as a dark horse candidate for the ambassador's post in Mexico.  That one didn't happen, but even then, it didn't seem likely.  This one...?


...Terry Goddard, former Arizona Attorney General and three-time candidate for governor (and a former mayor of Phoenix), is mulling a run at another term as AG.

From Politics Plugged In, written by Dennis Welch

Old pols never die and many times they never fade away, either.

 

Take former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard for example. The three time gubernatorial loser told 3TV this week that he might want his old job back.

 

“I’ve been seriously thinking about it because I don’t like seeing what’s happening to the office,” Goddard said over the telephone. “Morale has fallen and a lot of people are leaving.”

...Jim Lane, Mayor of Scottsdale, is making noises, and moves, like someone who is strongly considering a 2014 run at a statewide office.  John Washington, in a post on Scottsdale Trails, dropped a hint that Lane may be looking at a run at either Arizona Secretary of State or even Governor.  According to the post, Jason Rose, one of the premier Republican PR flacks in AZ and a Lane "advisor", has publicly stated that Lane isn't considering a run for AZ Treasurer.

However, that denial may fall into the category of "whistling past resign-to-run" - as part of Scottsdale's State of the City activities this past week, at one event, Lane was introduced by Doug Ducey, who is none other than the current AZ Treasurer.  And Ducey himself is the subject of rumors regarding a possible 2014 run for Governor.

There is also talk that the "Lane as a candidate for AZSOS" talk was less a serious consideration than a threat to gain the support of State Senator Michele Reagan (R-LD23), a real candidate for SOS.  Apparently, while Reagan and Lane are both members of the chamber of commerce wing of the AZGOP, and both are from Scottsdale, they aren't exactly best friends.

Lastly, while Lane has strong ties to the business community, he is taking steps to shore up his support among social conservatives.

Witness this picture of the invitation to an official event with Jim Lane, Mayor -

While the invite touts the event as "Breakfast With The Mayor", has the city's logo on it, and is going to take place in a city-owned facility (Granite Reef Senior Center), it has a rather curious "copyright" statement - it was copyrighted by the Paradise Valley Community Church.

Hmmm...

Obviously, nothing is definite yet (other than that Lane and Rose need a civics class refresher, focusing on the separation of church and state), but if a Lane statewide candidacy comes to pass, political dominos will fall in Scottsdale in much the same way that an elevation of Ed Pastor to the president's cabinet would set off a political reshuffling in south and west Phoenix.  Virginia Korte and Bob Littlefield, current members of the Scottsdale City Council, would almost certainly test the waters.  That would open up the race for one of the state representative spots in north Scottsdale, a position that Littlefield is "exploring", and so on...

...More to come as the 2014 election cycle reaches full speed...

Update: Campaign Committees

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


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

...In legislative developments -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note2: All numbers rounded to the nearest dollar.

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

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

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

Later...

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

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

The grades for the AZ delegation can be found here.

Summary:

Harry Mitchell - A+ (whooo hoooo!)

Ann Kirkpatrick - A+

Ed Pastor - A

Gabrielle Giffords - B

Raul Grijalva - C

Jon Kyl - D

John McCain - D

Trent Franks - D

Jeff Flake - F

John Shaddegg - F


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

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

No matter how much the Rs protest to the contrary.

Health care vote coming up in Congress

Later this week, or perhaps early next week, the US House will vote on a health care reform bill. Its passage (assuming it passes, a likely occurrence but far from a guaranteed one) won't signal the end of the HCR debate - the Senate will still have to deal with it.

However, now is the time to help ensure HCR's passage through the House - contact your Congressional representative and urge them to support it.

My brief letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell, doing just that -

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

Within the next week or so, Congress will be voting on a health care reform bill.

Last year, you supported an HCR bill with a strong public option (Thank you!), and I am writing to you to urge you to continue to do so.

The current system of health insurance caters to the whims and desires of corporate bigwigs and lobbyists, while denying care for the patients who need it.

Throughout your political career, you have been known for standing up for the needs of your constituents. Right now, thousands of your constituents need you to stand strong one more time, this time against against the falsehoods and smears of those who are profiting from the current dysfunctional system of health insurance.

Congressman Mitchell, thank you for all that you have done for the people of your district.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

At this point, I expect that long and involved missives aren't necessary, but short notes to let our Congressmen and -women know that people are still watching and care about HCR are definitely in order this week.

Congressman Mitchell's online contact/email form is here.

For those who live in districts other than CD5...

Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) can be contacted here
Ed Pastor (CD4) can be contacted here
Raul Grijalva (CD7) can be contacted here
Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) can be contacted here

If you live in CDs 2, 3, and 6, you are represented by hardcore Republicans who are opposed to any kind of health care reform, no matter how much their constituents urgently need it to pass. Whether you support or oppose HCR, those reps don't care - they made up their minds before it was even proposed.

Later...

Health care reform: It's not time to get out the tar and feathers...yet

Desert Beacon in Nevada puts it far better than I can here...but that's not going to stop me from trying anyway. :)

Most of the recent developments regarding health care reform in the Senate have been disheartening to those of us who support substantive reform.

Between Joe Lieberman behaving as if he is relevant, the death of a single-payer plan, and the way that the Senate plan has morphed from a plan to "reform" health care to a plan to "enhance" insurance industry profits, it's easy to be discouraged.

Don't be, not yet anyway.

This whole mess still has to go to conference committee to be merged with the bill that passed the House.

What is more important than the Senate bill is the final bill, the one that reaches the President's desk.

Many people in the center and on the left may not understand that, but you can be sure that the Republicans understand it all too well. They are less interested in seeing that a "bad" bill passes the Senate than in seeing *no* bill pass the Senate.

They know that it is easier to fix the shortcomings in a bad program than to start one from scratch (witness the months-long kerfluffle over health care reform).

Now is the time for all of us to contact our representatives in Congress again (I know a couple of office staffers who aren't going to be happy about that line :)) ) and let them know that the only acceptable reform is real reform, not an insurance industry wish list. Let them know that their constituents need them to stand strong in supporting substantive reform.

We've given up on single-payer (with all due respect to Senator Sanders, his amendment was never going to pass even if he hadn't withdrawn it). but a non-mandatory public option is a must, and it's a reasonable compromise.

Well, "reasonable" to most anyone who doesn't work for the insurance industry, like Jon Kyl, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman (ok, so it's Lieberman''s wife who works for the industry. He works for her.)

We can get that in conference, but first, we have to *get* to a conference committee.

For that, we need the Senate to pass *something.*


Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) can be contacted via this online form.

Congressman Raul Grijalva (CD7) can be contacted here.

Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) can be reached here.

Congressman Harry Mitchell (CD5) has a contact form here.

Congressman Ed Pastor (CD4) can be reached via this generic House contact form.

I'm not bothering to list the contact info for any of the Arizona Republicans in the House or Senate. They've all made it clear that they are opposed to any form of health care reform, or at least any that isn't structured to increase insurance company profits and reduce choice for average Americans. If you want to contact them, then use a search engine to find their official websites and work from there.

H.R. 3962 passes - YESSSSSS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Later...

Congressman Harry Mitchell on Health Care Reform

Courtesy an email sent today -

Dear [cpmaz],

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Harry

Let me translate this into English -

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


And for those of you who live in other CDs -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later...

AZ U.S. House members' budgets

Info courtesy Politico.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona's week in Congress...

Just passed and upcoming...


In floor votes -

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

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

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

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


Floor speeches -

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

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

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


Sponsorships -

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

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

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


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


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

Later!

Arizona's week in the House in review

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

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

Last week, however, had some activity of note -

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

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

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


Bill sponsorships...

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

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


Floor speech action...

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

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

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


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

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

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


Press releases (all from House websites)...

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

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

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

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

Arizona's week in Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoooo hoooo!!!

:)

Anyway, back to the boring stuff...

On Friday, the House started on actual legislative business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't bet on it.

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

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

Later...

Letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell

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

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

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

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

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

Our Congressfolks and their contact pages -

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

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

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


Later!

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...