Ben Quayle wants extra $$$ for talking to the people he works for

Apparently, $174,000 per year, plus benefits and perks, isn't enough to convince Ben Quayle (R-CD3) that he should have to talk his constituents, aka - "his employers."

From Politico, written by Reid Epstein (emphasis mine) -

It will cost $15 to ask Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) a question in person during the August congressional recess.

The House Budget Committee chairman isn’t holding any face-to-face open-to-the-public town hall meetings during the recess, but like several of his colleagues he will speak only for residents willing to open their wallets.

Ryan, who took substantial criticism from his southeast Wisconsin constituents in April after he introduced the Republicans’ budget proposal, isn’t the only member of congress whose August recess town hall-style meetings are strictly pay-per-view.

Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) is scheduled to appear Aug. 23 at a luncheon gathering of the Arizona Republican Lawyers Association. For $35, attendees can question Quayle and enjoy a catered lunch at the Phoenix office of the Snell & Wilmer law firm.

Like his colleague "Foreclosure Dave" Schweikert (R-CD5), Quayle is mimizing contact with the people of his districts, but at least Schweikert was smart enough to schedule his "pay to play" events out of state (CA) or in October, perhaps giving people time to forget how Quayle, Schweikert, and the rest of the Rs are *deep* in the pockets of Big Business.

Of course, perhaps the fact that Schweikert's October event is having breakfast with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the US Chamber of Commerce won't exactly help to dispel the idea that he and his associates don't hold the interests of their constituents in high regard.


One final observation:  Most people who work for a living have people who they answer to, whether those people are called customers or employers or whatever. 

I wonder what would happen to Quayle et. al. if they took their open contempt for the people who pay their salaries to private sector jobs? 

Foreclosure Dave-speak 101: First lesson - what he says, what he means

Wednesday, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a joint press release requesting suggestions on how to best dispose of the large number (~250K) of foreclosed single-family homes that are currently owned by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration.

Based on the press release, while the preference is for them to be owned by families, they are leaning toward turning a significant portion of the portfolio of foreclosed properties into rentals.

Naturally, the Congressman from Arizona's 5th District, "Foreclosure Dave" Schweikert is all over this.

He issued a press release, and as a public service, I will translate what he wrote into what he actually means -

“Since arriving in Congress one of my top priorities has been finding ways to re-start help me and my business partners squeeze even more blood out of the stone that is the U.S. housing market. One of the biggest impediments to a housing recovery even more profits for me and my wealthy friends at Swartz and Brough is that the U.S. government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is holding more than 250,000 Real Estate Owned (REO) single family residences across the country. The continued inability failure to move these homes back into the marketplace into our possession has created significant uncertainty for the market our balance sheet, which has received little indication about when, how, and if these homes will ever be sold given to us.

“Today, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees Fannie and Freddie, issued a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit ideas about how to dispose of these transfer the REO properties to me and my friends.

“Moving these properties off the government’s books and back into the market-place onto mine is an important step in creating velocity in the housing market a stable source of profit for me and mine by removing uncertainty about the fate of these homes. If priced at an appropriate discount subsidized for well-connected profiteers, these homes will be a unique opportunity for first time home buyers to enter the market at competitive prices to transfer most of their life savings to me and mine.

“Arizona is home to many real estate entrepreneurs profiteers and I welcome thoughts and feedback on ways to move these homes to reduce taxpayer risk me and mine and ensure this program is implemented properly, you know, with taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people.

“As part of the Republican jobs personal wealth acquisition at taxpayer expense agenda, this one technical correction that I am happy to be involved with and many Arizonans will be encouraged to see told that they can kiss my butt if they don't like it.”

Later...

Foreclosure Dave feeling the pressure over his hypocrisy?

David Schweikert, CD5's representative in Congress, has made a fortune off of the misery of Arizonans who have seen their homes foreclosed.

Since he's been in office, he's come in for some withering criticism from some quarters (including this one) for working to take advantage of Arizonans suffering the effects of the economic cratering here, rather than working to improve economic conditions here and across the country.

Now, reports have come to me that at least one of his staffers is telling people who bring this up that Schweikert has sold his real estate business.

That sounds all well and good, except for one thing -

I can't find any evidence that he has done so.

According to the available public records...

...his company Sheridan Equities, an LLC formed in 2006, still shows him as the sole manager and lists his Fountain Hills address as its business address

...another company, Sheridan Equities Holdings, an LLC formed in 2009, also still shows him as the sole manager with the Fountain Hills address as its business address

...yet another company, MASFund AZ, an LP formed in 2010 in Texas, with Swartz and Brough (a Texas company and his partners in the home grab and flip scheme) and Sheridan Equities as partners, still shows Sheridan as one of the partners (Arizona SOS registration on the LP here and ACC info on its related LLC here; TX info on the LLC here.

...according to the Maricopa County Recorder's office, Sheridan Equities is still acquiring property.  Most recently, in February a transfer from Swartz and Brough to Sheridan was recorded.  MASFund AZ has been much more active, acquiring or disposing of at least six properties since the beginning of the year.

All of the property dispositions look to be sales to individual owners, not transfers that exhibit a pattern of transfers to a new business owner.  In addition, the Maricopa County Assessor still shows the owner address for the properties owned by Sheridan as Schweikert's.

In short, I can't state definitively that Schweikert has not sold his real estate business, but if he has, it seems that he hasn't told anyone except for his staff about it.

If he really *has* sold his real estate business, he might want to think about correcting that oversight.

Notes:

"LLC" is an abbreviation for "Limited Liability Corporation"; the IRS definition is here.

"LP" is an abbreviation for "Limited Partnership": a definition, courtesy the State of California, is here.

Update: Schweikert's foreclosure "prevention" event moved

Update to the update on 7/28 -

A call to Schweikert's office brought forth a statement that the event will be held in the Tempe library.  However, a call to the history museum brought forth a statement that their facility has been booked for the event on Saturday.

Advice:  plan to show up early (8:30 or 8:45 a.m.) and be prepared to move.  Fortunately, the Museum and Library are part of the same complex, so it won't be a long walk if one is necessary.

End 7/28 update...

...and there are rumors that it may have been moved again already, but this is the latest verifiable info...

Congressman "Foreclosure Dave" Schweikert is holding a foreclosure prevention workshop this coming Saturday, July 30.

Originally scheduled for the Pyle Center in Tempe, the latest information, courtesy the Arizona Foreclosure Prevention Task Force, is that it will now be held in the lower level of the Tempe Public Library.  The scheduled time is still 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.

There was a rumor going around tonight that the event will actually be held at the Tempe History Museum, but while I will check it out tomorrow (by calling Schweikert's district office), I am going with the taxk force's info because it was uploaded to their Facebook page just a few hours ago.

Of course, Schweikert's Congressional website still shows the event location as the Pyle Center.

That's in keeping with an apparent nationwide pattern - Republican elected officials moving events or just generating confusion about them to reduce public attendance.  That way they can claim to have met with their constituents but can better control which constituents they meet with.

We'll see how Saturday turns out...

Schweikert to hold foreclosure prevention workshop

Edited on 7/27 to reflect a change in location.  There are rumors that it may change again before the event takes place.  Check the latest entries in this blog before going out to the event...

...which would be fine in a "constituent services" sort of way, except no one is sure if the priority will be helping CD5 residents keep their homes, or helping "Foreclosure Dave" scope out future targets...

Courtesy the Republican site Intellectual Conservative Arizona, the details of the event -

When: Saturday, July 30, 2011
Time: 9:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Where:
Tempe Public Library
3500 S. Rural Rd.
Tempe, Arizona 85282

...While the pace of acquisitions and dispositions of foreclosd properties by Schweikert and his partners (through corporate entities Swartz and Brough, Sheridan Equities, and MasFundAZ) has slowed somewhat since the election, it *has* continued.

As have the neighborhood-blighting code violations at some of the properties they've grabbed up.

If you go, be cautious with how much information you give to the staffers at the event...

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...

Schweikert reaching...into some deep pockets

From Huffington Post, written by Paul Blumenthal -

Of all the ways that Congress finds to make Americans cringe, the creation of leadership political action committees (PACs) -- campaign finance vehicles that provide yet another avenue for special interest influence and test the furthest limits of the English language with unwieldy acronyms -- may induce the strongest grimaces.

{snip}

The House Financial Services Committee, a well-known feeding ground for money-hungry lawmakers, is the most represented committee among GOP freshmen with PACs and includes Reps. Robert Hurt (Va.), Dave Schweikert (Ariz.), Jim Renacci (Ohio), and Michael Grimm (N.Y.). The campaign committees of these four lawmakers have all received an inordinate amount of contributions from financial PACs. Now those financial PACs, some of the biggest donors to Congress, have another avenue to contribute to new committee members overseeing their industry. Republicans, as well as Democrats, place vulnerable members on the committee so they can raise funds from the industry the panel oversees.

Interesting article.  It inspired me to do a little research on the FEC's website.

A "leadership" PAC to benefit freshman GOPers Schweikert, Hurt, Steve Stivers and Francisco Canseco named "Freshman Majority" was formed late April/early May and hasn't filed any reports yet.  However, Schweikert's latest campaign filing shows that he has been the recipient of a lot of bribes campaign contributions from industries that have matters before the Financial Services Committee in the US House.

He reported $166K in contributions during the three month period ending March 31; more than 25% $43,000 came directly from insurance, banking, and real estate PACs (or, in a couple of cases, lawyer/lobbying firm PACs where they firm self-identifies as working primarily for interests in those areas; other lobbyist firm contributions were not added into this total).

Another 15%, or $26K, came from individual donors who self-identified as working in the same businesses.

Think it's a coincidence that Schweikert opposes regulation of financial industry activities and supports destroying Medicare and replacing it with a corporate Vouchercare program?

Schweikert makes pronounceement: Gutting Medicare is "honorable"

Big hat tip to David Safier at Blog For Arizona for noticing this.

ABC News featured an interview today with CD5's Congressman David Schweikert.  He spent his time whistling past the graveyard over the Republican loss in NY-26 last night, something which most observers (including me) attribute to the Republican candidate's whole-hearted embrace of the plan to turn Medicare into a corporate voucher plan.

Among the "highlights" -

Destroying Medicare is "based on the math."

Destroying Medicare will "save the republic."

Destroying Medicare is "the honorable" thing to do.

At the end of the interview, there was a staged, "awww, isn't that cute moment" moment with Schweikert's dog, Charlie.  Schweikert called to the dog to get him to jump up, but had to tug on his leash to get Charlie to move for the camera.

Wonder if Schweikert will be surprised when the seniors and working families that he is throwing under the bus tug on his leash?

Short Attention Span Musing

...Late this week, the state elections director announced that she made a "mistake" in the timetable for forcing a recall election of Russell Pearce in November, meaning that any such election is now delayed until March of next year.

Has anyone else noticed that Amy Bjelland, the state elections director made the "mistake" benefitting Senator Russell Pearce, the current president of the state senate, was formerly the legal counsel for the Republicans in the state senate? 

Before she went to work for her current boss, Ken Bennett, who used to be a former Senate president himself? 

That many coincidences strains credibility.

I know a lot of good people (in other words, not people who support Pearce) who truly believe Bjelland made an honest mistake.  However, and maybe this just means that I'm not a good person, or perhaps just simply too cynical, but I don't believe that.

...Now that the latest "rapture" is over, it's time to take stock.  Of the 61 legislative Republicans, most of whom trip over themselves proving their devoutness whenever the opportunity presents itself...in front of TV cameras, anyway...how many are missing?  Surely at least a dozen or so must have been scooped up, right?

...Rumor has it that Sarah Palin is moving to north Scottsdale.  I don't know if it is true, but if it is, David Schweikert, Jeff Flake, and Jan Brewer better watch their backs.  One of them will have a target on it.

...Too funny for any words that I can add to it:  Newt Gingrich, Dancing Queen.


Later...

Schweikert: Doing what he was born to do

...Pimping for Big Oil Pumping gas...

From the KNXV (channel 15)  -

Tomorrow: 10 stories to watch in Arizona 5/18 2011

{snip}
 
SCHWEIKERT PUMPS GAS

Congressman David Schweikert will meet with constituents and fill up gas tasks as he talks about rising gas prices and energy independence. 8am-9am, Danny’s Family Car Wash, Scottsdale.

FYI, Danny's Family Car Wash is headed up by Danny Hendon, a noted "entrepeneur"/corporateer with bankruptcy issues and a track record of securing taxpayer-backed financing based on a sketchy letter of credit.

Just the sort of "association" that one can expect from the pro-corporate/anti-senior "Foreclosure Dave."

Note:  Green2V, the company in question (re: letter of credit), is incorporated in AZ,  and is Hendon's and a partner's through a series of his other corporate and partnership entities (here, here, here, and here), all registered at the same address, 15509 N. Scottsdale Rd.

David Schweikert has time for contributors but not for constituents

Cross-posted from Blog For Arizona...

If you are bored and looking for a really expensive drink and some lame conversation tomorrow after helping out the Recall Pearce effort.  :)


First, from Schweikert's House website -

Due to a scheduling conflict, the Listening Sessions with David Schweikert planned for May 16th and May 19th, 2011, have been postponed to a future date to be determined.

However, whatever the "scheduling conflict" may be, apparently it isn't important enough to get in the way of campaign fundraising.

From an announcement for an event on Saturday -

You are Invited to Attend the

Talking With Tempe Event

in support of

U. S. Congressman David Schweikert

House Financial Services Committee
& Vice Chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee

Hosted by

Honorable Hugh Hallman

Honorable Onnie Shekerjian

Dennis Redmond & Dick Foreman

Saturday, May 14
4:00pm – 6:00pm

$100 Attend
$1,500 Co-Host

The Penthouse at Bridgeview Condominiums

140 E. Rio Salado Parkway, Tempe AZ 85281

Host Committee:

Steve Chucri

Jose Esparza

Bettina Nava

Barry and Jody Aarons

Ann and Danny Seiden

The Honorable Laura Knaperek

Umm...yeah. Nice priorities there, Dave.

BTW - think it's a coincidence that Schweikert stressed his particular House committee membership in the notice? Check out the host committee for the event -

Chucri is a lobbyist.

Esparza is a lobbyist.

Nava is a lobbyist.

Aarons is a lobbyist.

Seiden is a lobbyist.

Knaperek is a lobbyist.


Later...

Republican plans to destroy Medicare run aground; leadership cries "Full steam ahead!" anyway

Republican members of Congress across the country have been getting an earful from constituents on their plan to gut Medicare, the health care plan for America's seniors.

The public expressions of displeasure have even reached Arizona.

From an AP article by Paul Babington, via Philly.com -

Robert Howarth, a Republican-turned-Democrat in Arizona, urged freshman Republican Rep. David Schweikert to find "other ways" besides the House-backed plan.


"We don't have to gut Medicare and go after the poor people on disability and Medicare," Howarth said at Schweikert's spirited town hall in Tempe, Ariz. "The millionaires and billionaires are not paying their fair share, like they used to," he said.

Howarth noted there was a strong economy and federal budget surplus during a time of higher tax rates in Bill Clinton's presidency.

The national pushback was so strong and nearly-universal that the Republicans have, backed off from their plans.  For now, anyway.

While temporarily heartening, the GOP leadership has already reiterated their threats against America's seniors, all in the name of "balancing the budget."

Of course, affirming their intent to gut Medicare only a couple of days after all but two of them voted to protect taxpayer subsidies to the most profitable industry in history only serves to illustrate the authenticity of their interest in "balancing" the budget.

The AP article quoted above, while written and published days before the Protect Big Oil vote, had a rather prescient line -

In an interview, Schweikert said he has talked with "market makers" who told him "we're going to punish you" if Congress doesn't make huge strides in reducing the deficit.

It's clear that Schweikert and his fellow Republicans in Congress may have the job title of "representative."

It's also clear that they have neither intent nor even interest in "representing" the people of their districts.

Schweikert two-stepping all over his constituents

From an op-ed written by Congressman David Schweikert and  published in the East Valley Tribune on March 11, 2011 -

"I remain committed, as I have always been, to protecting seniors..."

From Section 501 of H. Con. Res. 34 (page 58 of the linked .pdf), aka "the Ryan budget" that Schweikert voted for a little more than a month later, April 15, 2011 -

(2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.

Schweikert is holding a "listening session" today.

At a police station in Tempe.

Just guessing here, but if his rationale behind meeting with the residents of CD5 while surrounded by the police is to intimidate dissenters from attending, perhaps he should reexamine his reasoning - his tea party supporters are the ones who think that "disorderly conduct" and "public discourse" are synonymous.

Trying to hide from legitimate dissent by hiding in a police station will only accomplish two things -

1.  His most ardent supporters will have to stay away for fear of picking up a charge or two, which would hurt Schweikert's reelection chances - if you get convicted of a felony in AZ, you lose your voting rights unless they are restored.

2. His strongest dissenters, who tend to know a few things about how to conduct themselves in public and can make their points without getting arrested, will have an easy time locating him.

They're not going to find it difficult to find him and make him aware of their displeasure at the way he has thrown the nation's, and the district's, seniors under the bus.

Still, this whole "first step one way then step the other way" routine is good basic training for his post-Congress gig -

A third-tier celebrity also-ran on "Dancing With The Stars."

#SchweikertFail: Some things aren't dilemmas for true public servants

In baseball, some players are "batting practice heroes," and some are "gamers."


The same is true in politics - there are wannabes, who put on a spectacular show when it doesn't count, and there are actual public servants who do the work in the trenches of public policy, taking positions and casting votes that certain of their supporters won't like (and that they themselves may not particularly like), but that are in the best interests of their constituents.

Congressman David Schweikert is shaping up as a wannabe, not a real, public servant.

From the Washington Post -

On his 104th day in office, Rep. David Schweikert stepped before about 60 of his constituents here and, like an economics professor, flipped through one scary chart after another to hammer home his point: America faces a tidal wave of debt.
Then he asked for a show of hands: If you were a freshman congressman like him, would you vote to raise the government’s debt limit?

{snip}

This is his dilemma: He knows Congress has little choice but to raise the amount of money the government can borrow to prevent the economic havoc sure to follow if the United States defaults on its loans. He also knows doing so is deeply unpopular — not only among his conservative base, but among some moderates and liberals, too.


“I desperately want to vote ‘no,’ ” Schweikert said at the town hall. “I also desperately don’t want [the economy] to crash.”

If Schweikert finds himself in a difficult political spot, it’s partly of his own making. He and the scores of other Republicans who were elected last fall ran on an unyielding pledge to cut spending, reduce the nation’s debt and generally get the country’s finances in order, a mission that has been fully embraced by party leaders in Washington.

When Harry Mitchell was in Congress, there were a number of times when I disagreed with his votes on certain measures, but I never disagreed with his motivation for those votes - trying to find the best way to serve the interests of the people of the 5th Congressional District.  He was willing to set aside his personal ideology to do what he thought was right by his constituents.

He didn't necessarily like all of the votes, but he cast the votes he thought were necessary.

David Schweikert?

If he played baseball, he'd lead the league in batting practice homers.

Schweikert votes to protect oil companies

Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.J. Res 44, a resolution continuing government operations for another two weeks, by a vote of 335 - 91.  As one can see from those totals, support for the measure was bipartisan, even if a lot of that support was of the "I'll hold my nose and vote for this anyway" variety.

Less bipartisan was the vote on a proposal by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) to add a clause to the measure "prohibiting the use of funds to be used for tax benefit or relief for any major integrated oil company."

What is possibly the single most profitable industry in the world is also one of the most highly subsidized.

Arizona's David Schweikert (R-CD5), a self-professed fiscal hawk, someone who never fails to grab an opportunity to rail about the federal deficit, had an opportunity to vote to cut the federal deficit by BILLIONS of dollars.

So what did he do?

Voted with every other Republican in the House of Representatives to continue the budget-busting (but oh-so-campaign-contribution-friendly) corporate subsidies.

The proposal to end oil company subsidies for as long as the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution (as opposed to an actual budget) went down 176 - 249.

Of course.

Take Two Aspirin And...: The Doctor Is In...

WebMD doesn't  have info on your ailment?  Not enough time or insurance coverage for a visit to a flesh and blood doctor?  No problem.

Dr. R. Musings is here for you with the AZBlogRadioM.D. radio show.  The phones are now open.

...The first caller is Dave from Fountain Hills. 

Dr. Musings: Hi Dave, what are your symptoms?

Dave from Fountain Hills: Doctor, I've got this stiff neck and a headache, and I'm having trouble sleeping.

Dr. Musings:  OK, Dave.  What have you been doing recently?

Dave:  Well, recently I've been sleeping in my office at work...

Dr. Musings:  If you've been sleeping on a couch, that could certainly contribute to your symptoms.

Dave:  At first, I thought that too, but I've been doing that since the beginning of the year and the problem just popped up this week.

Dr. Musings:  Hmmm.  What has happened this week?

Dave: Well, this meddlesome watchdog group has been calling for an investigation of my sleeping arrangements and wants me to pay taxes on the benefit I am receiving from the use of my office as a hotel room.

Dr. Musings:  Stress from that could certainly contribute to your symptoms.

Dave:  I thought that too, but I've been planning to sleep in my office since even before I was in the office and am kind of immune to the objections of the little people, and anyway, let's face facts - I'm a Republicans, so the rules don't apply to me anyway.

Dr. Musings:  OK, so what else did you do this week?

Dave: Well, on Thursday, I was at the White House having my picture taken with the President as he signed a bill naming a new federal courthouse after Judge John Roll, one of the victims of the mass shooting in Tucson in early January.  It was funded by economic stimulus funds.

Dr. Musings: Uh-huh....

Dave: After that, I went back to my hotel room...errrrr...*office* and pumped out a press release, criticizing the stimulus package as a complete failure...

Dr. Musings: Stop right there.  It's obvious that you are suffering from a strong case of whiplash.  Take two aspirin, wear a foam neck collar, and for at least the next four weeks, no twisting yourself like a pretzel to pat yourself on the back while stabbing public employees, women, and poor people in the back.

Dave: I'll have nothing to do for a whole month?!? [muffled cursing]  Doctor, that will put a serious crimp in my fundraising for the 2012 election cycle.

Dr. Musings:  I know it will be difficult, but better that than getting so twisted up you need surgery.

Dave:  Surgery?!?!?

Dr. Musings:  Cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery.

Dave:  What?  Would that really be necessary?

Dr. Musings:  Well, to be honest, that's only a recommendation, not a necessity.  Many of your colleagues live long and profitable, though not very productive, lives with their craniums firmly lodged in their rectums.  The condition makes driving more difficult, but as an Arizona driver, nobody will notice any thing out of the norm.

Dave:  Whew!  My lobbyists....errr....constituents need me to be at full speed.  Thank you Doctor!  I don't know what I'd do without you.    Tell you what, I'm going propose a bill declaring that we replace that socialist Medicare program with cards with your phone number on them.  Anyway, thanks again Doc!  Gotta go foreclose on....errrr...."meet with" a constituent.

Dr. Musings: Umm, OK Dave.  Glad to help.  Next caller.  Jack from Surprise, are you there?

Jack from Surprise: Doctor, I've been experiencing this stinging sensation on the top of my head since Tuesday.

Dr. Musings:  What happened on Tuesday?

Jack:  One of my strike-everything amendments was heard in committee in the Arizona House of Representatives.

Dr. Musings:  Oh?  How did that go?

Jack:  Not well, Doctor.  It was this harmless little idea to mess with Indian tribes to keep them from opening a casino near my district while messing with cities and towns' state-shared revenue, and NOBODY supported it.  Industry opposed it, the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy opposed it, the Attorney General opposed it, members of the committee picked on me, even the committee chair, my seatmate, opposed it.  Even some uppity wiseass blogger from Scottsdale opposed it.  It was unanimously voted down.  That NEVER happens.  I'm so embarrassed, Doctor.  It's as if even my fellow crazy Republicans think that I'm too crazy for the legislature.

Dr. Musings:  Jack, you are clearly suffering from the after effects of a total smackdown.

Jack: Oh.  What do I do for that, Doctor?

Dr. Musings: Take two aspirin.  After that, pull out a jar of peanut butter, at least 16 ounces, and a full box of saltine crackers, and eat them.  Don't drink anything while you are doing this.

Jack:  But...but...but, Doctor, if I do that, I won't be able to speak!

Dr. Musings:  That's kind of the point Jack.  Thank you for your call.  Next caller, you're up.  Ron from Lake Havasu, are you there?

Ron from Lake Havasu:  Hi Doctor Musings.  Yes, I am.

Dr. Musings:  How can I help you today, Ron?

Ron:  Well Doctor, for the last few weeks, I've had this burning sensation in my throat and a rumbling sensation in my stomach.

Dr. Musings:  What's been going on in your life for the last few weeks?

Ron:  It started when I tried to ram through a couple of anti-birthright citizenship bills in my own committee.  The bills are part of my plan to rid the country of those sneaky children who were born here but whose parents were not.  My committee, my own freakin' committee!, heard nearly 90 minutes worth of testimony from some ringer I had schlepped in for just this occasion, but then I had to pull the bills before a vote because I was stabbed in the back by some of my own fellow Republicans.  They were so worried about looking bad over attacking children that they wimped out, citing Constitutional concerns.  ARRGGGHHH!

Dr. Musings:  Go on, Ron.

Ron:  Then this past week, I got screwed over twice.  First I couldn't get another anti-immigrant bill through my committee, one that would turn hospitals into immigration checkpoints, and had to pull that one too.  The next day, my "birther" bill, which would have required presidential candidates to produce paperwork that doesn't even exist for most of them, was actually defeated but traitorous Republicans and and wussy Democrats who were more concerned with not violating the U.S. Constitution than with keeping a black man out of the White House.

Dr. Musings: Hmmm....  OK Ron.  It seems as if you are suffering from a severe case of ego-initiated acid indigestion, brought on by abject failure.

Ron:  Sounds bad, Doc.  What is the treatment?

Dr. Musings: Take two aspirin, drink a bottle of Pepto, and try again.  There's no salve for failure that's more effective than success.

Ron:  Doc, I can do that.  On Tuesday, Senate Appropriations will meet and consider my bills.  For good measure, there are going to be a LOT more bad bills on the agenda, just to serve as a warning to backsliders - no more wimpy protestations about "the Constitution" or other crap.  Wonder if they'll let me fly my Confederate flag over the Capitol on Tuesday...

Dr. Musings:  On that rather bizarre note, we are out of time and have to go for now.  Thank you callers.  Thank you listeners.  Tune into our next show where we interview a follicly-challenged Senate President about treatments for male pattern baldness.

Talk to you all next week!  Dr. R. Musings, for AZBlogRadioM.D., signing out.

2012 Congressional Speculation

With Senate candidate speculation running wild across Arizona (Flake in, Shadegg out, Arpaio flirting, Democrats waiting until summer to see what happens with Gabrielle Giffords' recovery), now folks are starting with speculation regarding possible Congressional runs.

Some of the names so far, mostly in a run for Jeff Flake's seat (CD6) sort of way, but not really, since redistricting could make the current CD6 a totally different district (with a couple of other committees thrown in for good measure) -

Republican Kirk Adams, speaker of the Arizona House, from East Mesa

Republican Russell Pearce, president of the Arizona Senate, from Central/West Mesa

Republican Scott Smith, Mayor of Mesa

Republican Chuck Gray, former state senator from LD19 (East Mesa), close to Pearce so probably won't jump into the race if Pearce actually runs

Republican Jay Tibshraeny, current Mayor of Chandler,  former state senator, and previously considered an heir-apparent for Flake's seat if Flake moved on/out.  Redistricting could affect his decision to run/not run (that caveat could apply to almost every possible candidate, so consider it applied for each one)

Republican Rich Crandall, current state senator from East Mesa.  Crandall, Adams, and Gray are all from the same district, LD19, but they aren't close friends by any stretch and could easily end up knocking each other off, helping Smith (if he jumps in)

Republican Gabriela Saucedo Mercer has opened a committee to run against Democratic incumbent Raul Grijalva in CD7.  Haven't heard of her before this and don't know much about her.  However, if she's a serious candidate (and not just a fringe tea party type), we'll know more later in the year
Republican David Schweikert has opened a reelection committee for his seat

Democrat Harry Mitchell hasn't ruled out a run for a rematch with Schweikert, looking to reclaim the seat he formerly held

Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, like Mitchell a former member of Congress, may also run again

Republican Hugh Hallman, Mayor of Tempe, has ambitions for higher office, but any run for Congress will depend on redistricting and which other candidates jump in

Democrat Neil Giuliano, former Mayor of Tempe and former Republican, could also jump in, especially if Mitchell decides against a run.  I don't know how close he and Giuliano are, but Mitchell is the political force of nature in Tempe, so his decision will affect that of the other potential candidates

Democrat Phil Gordon, current Mayor of Phoenix whose term expires this year.  Noted for his ambition and his Phoenix-based campaign machine, if he doesn't go for the Senate seat, is seen as likely to pursue a Congressional run.  Of course, he could go for Governor in 2014, or for McCain's Senate seat in 2016, or...? :)

Republican State Senator Rick Murphy, a former (and future?) Congressional candidate, has opened a $500 Threshold Committee for a run at the Peoria Unified School District Governing Board.  Someone like Murphy standing for a public school committee slot is like someone like me standing for chair of the AZGOP.  Except that I don't want to kill off and bury the AZGOP, just help defeat them at the ballot box


There will be other names out there once the new district maps are drawn, and once the field for the soon-to-be open U.S. Senate seat sorts itself out.

Later...

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

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

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

Republicans -

JD Hayworth - $148,224.47

Jeff Flake - $627,851.61

John Shadegg - $154.99

David Schweikert - $16,308.33

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

Jonathan Paton - $12,389.26

Ben Quayle - $7607.04


Democrats -

Ed Pastor - $1,391,936.29

Gabrielle Giffords - $285,501.24

Raul Grijalva - $30,621.77

Ann Kirkpatrick - $13,896.86


Just for giggles -

Joe Arpaio - $2,829,160.00

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


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

Of course, they'll have to.  :)

David Schweikert: "Master Of The Budget Numbers", or "Master Of The Lobbyist Payoff Game"?

David Schweikert (R-Club for Growth) was the subject of a recent puff piece on the conservative news site Human Events (of course, calling it a "news" site is like calling Bristol Palin a "dancer").

The writer lauded Schweikert (as Schweikert lauded himself) for being a "fiscal conservative" and touting his desire to rein in federal debt.

Schweikert feels that government spending beyonds its means is dreadful and must be stopped at all costs except, possibly, for raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations.  He has even proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, H.J. Res. 23, that would mandate that the federal budget be balanced (no text available online yet as the measure was introduced just yesterday).

That feeling, however, doesn't apply to his *own* spending.  Nope, he's a lot more "flexible" where that is concerned.

According to his most recent FEC filing, his campaign has a little more that $16K cash on hand, while over $500K in debt and loan obligations, almost all to himself ($500K in loans).

Not to worry though, as Schweikert is a man with a plan.

In this case, he's got a lobbyist schmoozefest/begging session scheduled for Thursday in DC.

Information on the event, courtesy the Sunlight Foundation -

For: David Schweikert (R, AZ-5)
When: Feb. 10th, 2011 (6 p.m.)
Where: Acadiana - 901 New York Ave NW
Type of Event: Dinner
Contribution Information: $2,500 Host; $1,000 PAC; $500 Individual
Make Checks Payable To: Manzullo for Congress - PO Box 368 Falls Church, VA 22040
RSVP: Meredith Hurt; mhurt@thehammondgrp.com

This looks a whole lot like money laundering, and I'm not talking about the "Make Checks Payable To: Manzullo for Congress" instruction - I *think* that's a typo as both Schweikert and Don Manzullo (R-IL16) are both clients of Hammond and Associates, a Republican fundraising "consultant."  They (Hammond and Associates) have the same mailing address on their website as is listed on the invitation.

Basically, Schweikert has officially "loaned" his campaigns (2008 and 2010) half a million dollars and now as a sitting member of Congress, he is now reaching out for lobbyist handouts to pay for his profligate personal spending.

At this point, I'd normally make a crack about watching for Schweikert to place advocating for the interests of corporations before advocating for the interests of his official constituents, the people of Arizona's 5th Congressional District.

However, it's long been known that if someone's last name can't be abbreviated "Corp.", "Inc.", or "LLC", Foreclosure Dave isn't there for them*.

* = One exception:  If that someone's job title can be abbreviated "CEO"...

P.S. - If you don't believe me, check out the list of contributors from his most recent FEC filing (linked above).

Perhaps if Schweikert wants people to believe that he is truly an advocate for fiscal responsibility, he should try, you know, *being* fiscally responsible.  Right now, however, it looks like the only things that differentiates him from JD Hayworth, the most recent Republican to hold the AZ5 seat, are visibly longer hair and no visible ties to Jack Abramoff.

Of course, Abramoff was released from confinement less than two months ago, so it may take a little more time for him to rebuild his "circle of influence."

David Schweikert's vote to repeal health care reform: Impacts on his "constituents"

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, a bill to repeal last year's health care reform legislation, by a vote of 245 - 189.  All Republicans, including AZCD5's David Schweikert, voted in favor of the bill.

The bill, the debate, and the vote were a triumph of ideology over reality, because if health care reform is repealed, it will increase the federal deficit and harm people all over the country, including thousands here in CD5.

From the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce -

This analysis describes the impact of repeal of the Affordable Care Act in the 5th Congressional District of Arizona, which is represented by Rep. David Schweikert. It finds that repeal of the health reform law would have significant consequences in the district by:


Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 122,000 to 320,000 individuals, including 8,000 to 36,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.

Rescinding consumer protections for 469,000 individuals who have health insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance.

Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 15,700 small businesses and 143,000 families.

Increasing prescription drug costs for 10,100 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole” and denying new preventive care benefits to 84,000 seniors.

Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 11,600 early retirees.

Eliminating new health care coverage options for 4,000 uninsured young adults.

Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 43,000 individuals.

Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $50 million annually.

Repeal of Protections Against Insurance Company Abuses

Repeal would eliminate the ban on discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Under the health reform law, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions in 2014. There are 122,000 to 320,000 residents in Rep. Schweikert’s district with pre-existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, including 8,000 to 36,000 children. Repeal would allow insurance companies to refuse to insure these individuals if they seek coverage in the individual or small-group markets. The consequences would be particularly acute for the 18,000 to 48,000 individuals in the district who currently lack insurance coverage and who would be unable to purchase individual policies if the law is repealed.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on annual and lifetime limits. The health reform law prohibits insurance companies from imposing annual and lifetime limits on health insurance coverage. This provision protects the rights of everyone who receives coverage from their employer or through the market for private insurance. If this protection is repealed, insurers would be able to impose coverage limits on 469,000 individuals in the district with employer or private coverage.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on rescissions. The health reform law prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage for individuals who become ill. Repeal would allow insurance companies to resume the practice of rescinding coverage for the 48,000 district residents who purchase individual health insurance.

Repeal would eliminate other consumer protections. The health reform law protects individuals from soaring insurance costs by requiring reviews of proposed rate increases and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administrative expenses, profits, and other overhead. Repeal would deny these new protections to tens of thousands of district residents who either buy their own insurance or receive coverage through employers who do not self-insure.

Repeal of Benefits for Individuals and Families

Repeal would eliminate the requirement that insurance companies provide free preventive care. The health reform law promotes wellness by requiring insurance companies to offer free preventive care as part of any new or revised policies they issue after September 23, 2010. Repeal would allow insurance companies to charge for these essential benefits, which would increase out-of-pocket costs for 98,000 district residents.

Repeal would eliminate health insurance options for young adults. The health reform law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies up to age 26. In Rep. Schweikert’s district, 4,000 young adults have or are expected to take advantage of this benefit. Repeal would force these young adults to find other coverage or return to the ranks of the uninsured.

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for buying health insurance. Starting in 2014, the health reform law gives middle class families the largest tax cut for health care in history, providing tax credits to buy coverage for families with incomes up to $88,000 for a family of four. Repeal would deny these credits to 143,000 families in the district.

Repeal would increase the number of uninsured. When fully implemented, the health reform law will extend coverage to 94% of all Americans. If this level of coverage is reached in the district, 43,000 residents who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. Repeal would mean these residents would lose their health insurance.

Repeal of Benefits for Seniors

Repeal would increase drug costs for seniors. Beginning in 2011, the health reform law provides a 50% discount for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who enter the Medicare Part D “donut hole” and lose coverage for their drug expenses. The law then increases the discount to Medicare beneficiaries each year until 2020, when the donut hole is finally eliminated. There are 10,100 Medicare beneficiaries in Rep. Schweikert’s district who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for these Medicare beneficiaries by over $500 in 2011 and by over $3,000 in 2020.

Repeal would deny seniors new preventive care and other benefits. The health reform law improves Medicare by providing free preventive and wellness care, improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home care. The law also strengthens the Medicare trust fund, extending its solvency from 2017 to 2029. Repeal would eliminate these benefits for 84,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district and cause the Medicare trust fund to become insolvent in just six years.

Repeal of Benefits for Small and Large Businesses and Health Care Providers

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for small businesses. The health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35% of the cost of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,700 small businesses in Rep. Schweikert’s district that are eligible for this tax credit. Repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage themselves.

Repeal would increase retiree health care costs for employers. The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. As many as 11,600 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance. Repeal would increase costs for employers and jeopardize the coverage their retirees are receiving.

Repeal would increase the cost of uncompensated care born by hospitals. The health reform law benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the cost of providing care to the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the cost of uncompensated care by $50 million annually for hospitals in the district.

Repeal of Benefits for Taxpayers

Repeal would increase the long-term debt by over $1 trillion. The health reform law reduces the nation’s debt by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system, reducing the growth of health care costs, and preventing excessive profit-taking by private insurers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the deficit by over $200 billion over the next ten years and by over a trillion dollars in the decade after that. Repeal would eliminate these cost-cutting measures, adding more than $3,000 to the national debt for each American, including the 680,000 residents of the district.

Of course, while Schweikert has enthusiastically worked to reduce his constituents and their families' access to health care, he has no problem accepting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for himself and his family, nor does he have a problem with shielding from public scrutiny the members of his own caucus who have done the same.