by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jan 2, 2023 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Decades of institutional self-neglect have left Congress dysfunctional and unfit to fulfill its constitutional role as the most consequential branch of government. Government of the people has morphed into government by bureaucrats, by the executive, and by the courts. The decision-making mechanisms of the People’s House are broken.
If you were fortunate enough to be educated in “civics,” you may remember being told of the process by which a bill becomes law. It is introduced by sponsors, assigned to committees, vetted with testimony and amended, referred to the whole body if approved, debated and amended again, passed out, and then sent to the corresponding legislative body if successful.
Known as Regular Order, the process can be tedious, but it has a purpose: to ensure a free, fair process in a lawmaking body where input from all is accepted and the final vote reflects the informed decision of a majority of members.
Well, kids, here’s the bad news. That process doesn’t really exist in today’s Congress. Instead, lawmakers use their authority to exempt themselves from their own rules. A jerry-rigged-substitute process has developed that, in the House, concentrates power in the Speaker’s office.
Meaningful decisions are made almost always at the leadership level. The rank-and-file are simply suits who vote. Representatives write newsletters telling constituents of any pork they’ve been able to score and the issues they are “fighting for” without disclosing how little real influence they have.
Thus, Congress enfeebles itself. It’s well suited to incumbent protection but not for effectiveness as an institution.
The Freedom Caucus, a right-leaning group of Republicans, is determined to change this. They note, for example, Congress hasn’t produced a legitimate budget in decades. Instead, they pass leadership-created “omnibus” bills with little prioritization or accountability, a process that has contributed to our devastating debt.
The Freedom Caucus has taken a lot of guff for their reform efforts. But how can they be faulted for grasping at a rare chance when they have influence? In the last Congress, they were a minority faction in a minority caucus. Now that their votes are needed to elect Kevin McCarthy to the speakership, they are trying to wield their influence usefully.
Their main ask is that the rank-and-file get a voice in the legislative process. Under present rules, for example, no lawmaker is able to introduce an amendment, either in committee or on the floor, in open process. The hoped for solution is to mandate voting on amendments that are supported by at least 10 percent of the members, a move that would greatly open up the legislative process.
Probably the most controversial proposal is to revive the “Motion to Vacate the Chair,” which empowers any member to call for a new speaker election. The rule was in place for 200 years before it was repealed in 2019 by Queen Nancy.
In practice, the rule was rarely invoked, presumably under the ancient dictum that “if you strike the king, you must kill him.” It would make the speakership less autocratic, balancing the power differential between leadership and the rank-and-file.
Pelosi Democrats often wrote significant legislation behind closed doors and then bull rushed it through Congress before legislators had time to read it. The Freedom Caucus members are calling for 120 hours between a bill’s introduction and its passage, which could only be overridden by a two-thirds majority.
Finally, the Freedom Caucus is asking McCarthy to agree to secure majority support from Republican members before bringing legislation to the floor. This too seems reasonable since Americans will rightly hold Republicans accountable for the performance of the House this term.
None of these proposals are outrageous. In fact, by making the legislative process more democratic and transparent, they give Republicans the chance to present themselves as the party of sound governance.
But the Freedom Caucus should not overplay its hand. If Rep. McCarthy is willing to compromise on some of their key demands, they should honor their own principles of majority rule and concur in his election, since it is favored by an overwhelming majority of Republicans.
Both sides should see this is an opportunity for a win-win, the potential kickoff to a new era of constructive change.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Dec 23, 2022 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
The last time Republicans lived up to their reputation for sound fiscal policy was almost 30 years ago. In March 1995, Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican House caucus, to the jeers of skeptics, resolved to balance the federal budget within seven years. They did it in four.
Yet ever since, Republicans have provided slight protection against the unending torrent of Democrat spending schemes. They talk a brave game of cutting when out of power but are mostly unable to curb their political urge to spend when they have the authority.
Consequently, the national debt doubled from $5 trillion to $10 trillion under the inattentive George W. Bush. Candidate Donald Trump in 2016 promised to pay down the debt completely over eight years. Sure. In just four years, the debt surged by $7.8 trillion, a 36% hike.
We’ve all seen the drill. Create an emergency spending need where none exists (climate change) or which could better be addressed in a more measured way (COVID), exaggerate the danger, create panic, open the spigot, take credit.
$4.1 trillion in new spending during the Biden years for these created “emergencies” have put Americans in extremely dangerous fiscal territory. The voters this time gave House Republicans one more chance to redeem themselves. Now the stakes are higher than ever, and the pressure is on.
The early rhetoric was promising. However, vows to “curb wasteful government spending” were followed by…reinstatement of earmarks. Those little pieces of unvetted local pork slipped into spending bills to benefit individual legislators. What a crushing disappointment.
Republicans swore off earmarks in 2011. But when a Democrat Congress brought them back in 2021, 120 Republicans partook, scooping up $5 billion for their own Bridges to Nowhere. A motion this year to disallow earmarks was overwhelmingly defeated in the Republican caucus.
15 conservative policy groups cautioned Republicans that “earmarks are one of the most corrupt, inequitable and wasteful practices in the history of Congress.” Each congressman earns his little cookie by supporting all of his colleagues’ polite graft.
Yet GOP appropriators claimed earmarks were their “constitutional duty” and actually help to control spending! What a crock.
The Republican face plant over a matter so obviously wrong gives fiscal conservatives the sinking feeling that they may not be up to the fight. Candidates barely mentioned the deficit/debt during the last election, in contrast to previous campaigns. What fiscal crisis?
Instead, Americans have been conditioned by their politicians to believe that no wants should be unmet, that we “deserve” lavish government benefits unyoked to effort, that thorny political issues from illegal immigration to educational failure can be solved by simply spending more, and that any fiscal consequences can be safely kicked down the road.
Republicans aren’t going to dig out of this hole any time soon. But they can start the process by doing the right thing right now.
As this is written, Republicans are negotiating an omnibus budget bill of nearly $2 trillion. The leadership has known for nine months this must be completed by year’s end, but once again thoughtful, thorough budgeting has given way to a 4,155-page bill delivered at 1:30 AM to legislators who can’t possibly understand its provisions.
The bill contains no program cuts, but instead a mix of mandatory spending, outrageous pork like LGBTQ “Pride Centers,” and a specific prohibition against funding for border security. Lawmakers must approve the bill now or, in the case of Republicans, be held liable for the dreaded government shutdown.
But economist Steve Moore has a better idea. Republicans only need to refuse to waive provisions of the 2010 Pay-As-You-Go Act. PAYGO has been routinely suspended in recent years, but just 41 of 50 senators refusing this time would result in $130 billion in mandatory “sequester” cuts, just 5% of the Biden spending splurge.
Alternately, Congress could cancel the $80 billion for 87,000 new IRS agents, take back $500 billion in unspent COVID funding, and/or scale back the “Green New Deal” subsidies, a relatively painless way to uphold the PAYGO rules.
Congressional Republicans will never have a better opportunity to begin the return to responsible governance. If they don’t have the will now, when will they?
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Sarah B. | Nov 13, 2022 | Opinion
By Sarah B. |
Even though I was raised in a loving, conservative home, and first registered to vote as a Republican, I switched to Democrat. Why? Partly out of pressure (basically bullied by my husband), but also, like many others, I had heard liberals were the compassionate ones, concerned about protecting the rights of others.
I justified that my husband was one of those liberals, and I could help the Party by sharing my conservative ideas. But he turned out to be a Leftist—insisting that we were “entitled to state benefits,” always angry about supposed racism (but without evidence), and always in fear of COVID or global warming. This was not the compassion I expected from liberals but instead a lot of ‘righteous’ anger. Eventually I woke up tired and worn out from the anger of the Far Left. I still have dear liberal friends, but I had to escape the mindset that took away my sanity and hope. Here’s what I learned.
1 – Democrats are no longer “the compassionate ones.” They’re either old school liberals (like John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton) OR they’re Leftists. The true liberals still care, but they don’t realize that their party has been taken over by socialists, and it’s demolishing what they believe in—what our forefathers created in our Constitutional Republic. The Democrat platform no longer cares about the rights and freedoms of the people; only about taking control.
2 – The Democrat media is NOT fact-based. When I registered as a Democrat, I noticed the videos posted to my Facebook made AOC look like the American Joan of Arc, standing up to Big Pharma and Big Tech. Nowhere was I shown the full sound bites where she makes no sense: ‘the Green New deal is going to save us from certain death in a decade!’ They use terms like fossil fuels, but have no idea what it really means. They say renewable energy is a great innovation that will keep improving, but it’s nowhere close to beating petroleum or nuclear power—both of which help most people in poorer countries.
3 – Democrat activists are kind of shady. Whenever someone found out that I was a registered Democrat, and they were too, the conversation turned SUPER secretive. They lowered their voice and looked around making sure no one else was listening, like we were part of a spy network. No joke. Every time! Once I was part of an activist group talking about staging a protest in front of a local GOP office—again it felt shady, rather than doing good work…. Eventually, I thought to myself: if what the Republicans (my family) are standing for is so bad, why is there a need to always be looking behind your shoulder? Why is everything in the Democrat party secretive?
After four years of living like this, I was obese, SUPER in debt, angry, and impatient with people: things I never wanted to be or have my son see. It hit me one day that my parents’ “normal” life was healthy. It had schedules, hard work, gratitude, and hope. Conservative values actually made happiness possible.
Leftist thinking had derailed my life. I had to make some tough choices, but now I’m free! Today, with my family’s support, I’ve lost and kept off over 20 pounds, paid off debts, been at peace with who I am, and become strong in my faith. Now, I have the ability to be fully present for my son. (He goes to the gym with me, and we even go to Republican meetings together!) Honestly, I can say it’s when I embraced conservative thinking that we started getting healthy.
Now I’m part of Chandler/Gilbert Republican Women, I’ve worked on campaigns, and contribute research and admin support for Arizona Women of Action. I’m excited to be an activist for freedom! I hope my story encourages others to think about their beliefs, and remember WHY we’re fighting—for a healthy, happy country.
Sarah is a part of the Chandler/Gilbert Republican Women and contributes research and administrative support for Arizona Women of Action.
by Corinne Murdock | May 2, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
2020 established Arizona as a purple state going blue, but the latest voter registration data indicates that the state may be shifting back to red. The data appears to align with predictions that the new legislative maps would favor Republicans.
The Yellow Sheet Report first reported the voter base shift. They obtained the data from DeMenna Public Affairs, a Phoenix-based government relations, public affairs, and political consulting firm.
LD9 went from slightly Democratic at a 2.6 percent advantage, to slightly Republican at a .071 percent advantage. The Senate seat will either be taken by State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa), Republican candidate Robert Scantlebury, or Democratic candidate Eva Burch. House LD9 candidates are Republican candidates Mary Ann Mendoza and Kathy Pearce, and Democratic candidates Lorena Austin and Seth Blattman.
LD4 and LD13 increased Republicans’ advantage from 3.4 to 11.25 percent and 1.6 to 7 percent, respectively.
The only Senate candidates for LD4 are State Senators Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) and Christine Marsh (D-Phoenix) — if the data forecasts the outcomes, it appears Barto will take the seat. The House race will see sole Democratic candidate Laura Terech face off against two of the six Republican candidates: John Arnold, Kenneth Bowers Jr., Vera Gebran, Matt Gress, Jana Jackson, and Maria Syms.
Senate LD13 candidates are State Senator J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler) versus either one of two Democrats: Cindy Hans or Michael Morris. As for the House seats, State Representative Jennifer Pawlik (D-Chandler) will face two of the five Republicans running: Josh Askey, Ron Hardin, Liz Harris, Don Maes, and Julie Willoughby.
LD2 increased steadily from a Republican lead of 3.8 to 6.28 percent. That may not bode well for State Representative Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix), the lone Democratic candidate running for one of the House seats. She may end up facing State Representative Justin Wilmeth (R-Phoenix) and one of the other Republican candidates: Christian Lamar, Pierce Waychoff, Neil Desanti, and Reynold Ramsey.
State Representative Steve Kaiser (R-Phoenix) is uncontested in the Senate LD2 primary, and will face off against one of the two Democratic candidates: Jeanne Casteen or Victoria Thompson.
LD8 Democrats lost just under 45 percent of their advantage, dropping from 27.5 to 12.36 percent. State Senator Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) retains a decent margin against either of the Republicans running for the Senate seat: Roxana Holzapfel or Todd Howard. Vying for the House seats are State Representatives Melody Hernandez (D-Tempe) and Athena Salman (D-Tempe) as the Democratic candidates, with Republican candidates Caden Darrow and Bill Loughrige.
LD12 Democrats lost just under 66 percent of their advantage, dropping from 53.9 to 35.36 percent. State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Chandler) will likely win the Senate seat against either one of the Republican challengers: David Richardson or Suzanne Sharer. As for the House seat, five Democrats and two Republicans are vying for the seats: Democratic candidates Patty Contreras, Sam Huang, A.J. Kurdoglu, Stacey Travers, and Paul Weich versus Republican candidates Jim Chaston and Terry Roe.
Only one legislative district shrunk for Republicans: LD16, where the advantage dropped from 3.6 to 1.04 percent. That makes the Senate race tighter for State Senator T.J. Shope (R-Phoenix) and Republican Daniel Wood, either one of whom may face Democrat Taylor Kerby. State Representative Teresa Martinez (R-Oro Valley) has two other Republicans in the race, Rob Hudelson and Braden Biggs, and one Democrat, Keith Seaman.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 8, 2022 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
An internal conflict appears to be brewing over state legislation which passed through the House and the Senate on March 3 on combined votes of 85 to 0 and was immediately signed into law the same day.
House Bill 2839 was intended to address concerns with statutory deadlines for candidates to qualify to run in Arizona’s 2022 primary elections, the first based on the state’s recently redrawn 30 legislative and 9 congressional districts.
HB2839 was written as an emergency law to provide new rules for this year’s primary election nominating petitions. Passage required a bipartisan, supermajority margin of at least two-thirds of both the 60-member House and 30-member Senate to be become immediately effective once Gov. Doug Ducey affixed his signature.
Yet within 48 hours of the emergency law taking affect, questions began to be asked about one of the four sections of the new law. By Monday morning, the majority of legislators who voted for HB2839 conceded they either misunderstood Section 4 or had not read the bill before casting a vote.
Section 4 contains a new, this-year-only nominating petition requirement which allows candidates for political party precinct committeemen (PCs) to skip signature gathering. But it also gives a political party’s local county committee sole authority to decide which one candidate must be appointed by the county board of supervisors to every PC position for that party.
In Arizona, a PC’s minimum duties under state law involve assisting their political party in voter registration and also providing voter assistance during an election. But a key PC duty involves a vacancy in a county or state office. In most instances, it is a county’s PCs of the party of the prior officeholder who nominate the candidate(s) to fill the vacancy.
The new law also contains other provisions in Section 4 which are confusing, such as providing for only one PC for each precinct, when some precincts currently have several PCs.
Senate President Karen Fann admitted on Sunday that Section 4 resulted in an unintended change in state law. She spent the weekend and Monday working with members to design a plan to repeal Section 4 while also ensuring the thousands of Arizonans interested in serving as a two-year terms as party precinct committeemen will be able to get their names on August’s primary election ballot.
Myriad reasons have been put forth by legislators for why they voted in support of HB2839 without questioning the drastic changes to PCs. Some privately admitted they did not read the bill’s language due to its support by legislative leaders. Others say the text of Section 4 was not capitalized, leading them to believe there was nothing being changed to PC-related laws.
Still others say they read the bill but believed Section 4’s reference to selection of PCs by the local party committee applied only to new precincts recently created under the once-a-decade statewide redistricting process.
New bills were introduced Monday in both chambers – HB2840 and SB1720 – to fully repeal Section 4. However, there are not enough votes yet to pass either bill by the necessary supermajority margin to take affect immediately.
In addition, many lawmakers say they will not vote to repeal Section 4 unless there is new legislation to properly address the PC nomination petition deadline.
“I’ve been pushing for a full repeal of this language all weekend,” Rep. Jake Hoffman said Monday. “The section dealing with PC elections that was snuck into the emergency bill last week will be removed.”
Hoffman (R-LD12) also called on Monday for a thorough review of how the PC language was added to the bill without a full disclosure to legislators.
“In my meeting with leadership today I also made it exceedingly clear that there must be accountability for this abhorrent breach of trust and legislative process,” he said.
