Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Ed Pastor in the Washington Post

2012-02-09T09:25:47-05:00

The Washington Post has identified 16 Congressmen who used earmarks to benefit their family members. Here's what the post discovered about Ed Pastor.

Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., is a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which has jurisdiction over the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The Energy Department agency is tasked with securing the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and preventing nuclear proliferation.

During the past six years, the congressman has directed the agency to send millions to fund the scholarship program for at-risk high school students headed by his daughter in Arizona. She earns $75,774 a year.

Pastor obtained a $1 million federal grant for the Achieving a College Education program at the Maricopa Community Colleges about four years before his daughter, Laura, was hired as its director in 2005. Since that time, Pastor has earmarked about $4 million from the nuclear agency for the program, records show.

Pastor said he's proud of the earmarks and pointed out that he has sent money to educational programs across his congressional district in Phoenix. Maricopa's ACE program provides financial support to high school students who are in danger of not graduating, enabling them to take classes and summer camps to build math and science skills and attend college. While the money goes to the program, Pastor said his daughter's salary is covered by the college.

"The perception is that you helped your daughter, but if you evaluate the kids who benefited from this, it was worth doing," the congressman said. "I believe thousands of kids have a better life today because of this program."

Pastor said he was searching to find ways to support the ACE scholarship program in 2005, when one of his colleagues on the appropriations committee said the nuclear security administration had grants available to fund programs at historically black colleges.

Given this, Pastor said he felt it was appropriate to earmark money from the nuclear agency to Maricopa because the students in the program are largely Hispanic. At the time, he said, he did not know that his daughter was applying for a job to head the program.

"She was never my motivation," Pastor said. "I wasn't aware she was applying. If I knew, I would have contacted the chancellor and said, 'What kind of position does this put you and me in?' "

Pastor filed three certifications between 2008 and 2010 stating that "neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project." Had he been a senator, Pastor would have been required to further certify that no "immediate" family members had an interest.

Laura Pastor declined to be interviewed. She said in a statement: "I applied for several positions at the Maricopa Community Colleges because I wanted to return to work in education. I was well qualified for my position, having administered a similar type of program in Chicago before returning to Arizona. I was chosen through a competitive process."

Tom Gariepy, a spokesman for Maricopa, said, "She was the best person for the job."

The Arizona Republic reported in 2007 that Laura Pastor was not the highest-ranked candidate for the position but had received a salary at the top of the pay scale. The paper also discovered that an equal-opportunity investigator had warned college officials that "we will not be able to totally defend the hiring decision."

After the hiring story faded, Pastor continued to earmark money for the ACE program, The Post found. Pastor has also secured earmarks for other colleges, including $185,000 to Pima Community College, $1.6 million to Arizona State University and $8.7 million to the University of Arizona. More than a third of his college earmarks — $4.2 million to his daughter's program and another $2 million to a different program — have gone to Maricopa.

A spokesman for the nuclear security administration said in a statement that the use of the earmarked money was appropriate.

"Congress has authority for all earmarks and makes those decisions," Joshua McConaha said in the statement. "This program is not unique within NNSA or within the federal government. . . . Recruiting and retaining the next generation of scientists and engineers is a priority for us because the types of people we need to execute our mission are highly sought after."

The Future of the Newspaper Industry summed up in one Headline.

2012-02-03T15:24:26-05:00

From the Business Journal.

Former ‘East Valley Tribune’ building to house DES offices

Political Questions require Political Answers

2012-02-01T10:16:15-05:00

I've often argued that the Prop 105 "Voter Protection" act in unconstitutional. By way of quick recap, the Federal Constitution has an obscure provision that guarantees that states have a "Republican form of Government". No matter how much you like the sound of direct Democracy, that's not our system. True, the courts have allowed the initiative process--but that process is in addition to the Legislative process.

While the initiative process itself has been upheld, I don't believe that an initiative that can't be amended later is consistent with the Guarantee Clause.

It turns out that I'm not the only one who's been thinking along these lines.

On the surface, the suit seems technical, arguing that Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, generally considered the tightest cap on spending and taxation in the nation, blocks the ability and jurisdiction of the state Legislature to properly do its job.

The deeper intellectual wellspring, though, harks back to the definitions of what a representative democracy is supposed to be, as articulated by the nation’s founding framers, especially James Madison, the fourth president

Political Question.

I think the folks challenging the Colorado law are likely to lose. That's because the courts have ruled that questions surrounding the Guarantee Clause are Political Questions...that means that the courts won't step in and resolve them. So if I were to sue and say that Prop 105 is unconstitutional, I would lose because the court would refuse to decide.

So if the Courts won't decide these cases...then the legislature should simply amend a "protected" statute and let the supporters of that statute sue. The courts will then say that the issue is political and they won't get involved. End of story.

There are plenty of good test cases, so let's take three examples in which the original will of the voters has turned out to be a disaster that the legislature would like to fix.

Minimum Wage

The state minimum wage law is set to go up again. The law was passed when the economy was really cooking...now the economy no longer cooking and neither are the cooks, dishwashers and busboys who have been priced out of a job.

First Things First

You will recall that First Things First was an initiative that raise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in order to give the funds to a shadow group to spend on various programs. That scheme is unconstitutional on a Separation of Power's argument, but I covered that argument in a different post.

The program has been a disaster because there's nothing more regressive than taxing alcohol and cigarrettes. I don't know why poor people smoke and drink such high proportions, but they do. Then the state budget collapse has force legislators to cut essential services while FTF continues to fund non-essential services. That money would be much better spent by the legislature, or even better, returned to the poor people who need it most.

First things First was a statutory initiative. The Legislature can simply repeal it and let Eddie Basha and his fellow travelers sue. Let him try to argue that this isn't a political question. Then let him try to argue that Prop 105 is consistent with representative democracy...while at the same time arguing that the legislature doesn't have the power to change the law.

Glendale Casino

In 2000, the tribes used the initiative process to create gaming compacts, and when they argued for those compacts, they promised to limit the number of casinos that they would build in the valley. The Tohono O'odham tribe is breaking its promise by trying to build a casino in the middle of Glendale. There is a tiny loophole in the gaming compacts that will let the tribe get away with this. That provision authorized the Tohono O'odham to build a fourth casino--even though they promised to only build three. The legislature should amend the compact so that it requires the tribe to keep its promise. Then let the tribe sue.

The tribe will argue that the Prop 105 provision is legal, but they will also arge that the compacts are not just laws, they are actual contracts--and that the Legislature can't void contracts. However, the gaming compacts weren't written as contracts. They are in the form of statutes.

These three cases show what a disaster Prop 105 has been. Not to mention that the the spending initiatives that have been "voter protected" are bankrupting the state. It's obvious that the legislature SHOULD amend these laws. And I think it's clear that the legislature has the AUTHORITY to amend these law. The question is whether the legislature has the COURAGE to amend these laws.

What's Going to Happen in District 9?

2012-01-27T11:25:18-05:00

Multiple sources tell me that Ben Quayle is planning to move to District 6 and run against Schweikert*.

So it’s looking like District 9 is going to be an open seat in a swing district—talk about a bloggers dream. These things are difficult to predict, but here are my thoughts on the key players.

On the Democratic side, it’s going to be Schapira verses Sinema. I was sitting next to Kyrsten on the set of Sunday Square Off when she said that she “loved Russell Pearce.” In Democratic circles, she’s taking a lot of grief for that remark, but give me a break. Haven’t we been talking about civility for the last year? Don’t we harkin back to the day when Legislators could disagree on the issues, but remain friends? Don’t you think that Barry Goldwater would say that he loved Mo Udall?

I think Sinema wins the primary.

On the Republican side, we are going to see a replay of the 2010 race but without Quayle. I think you will see Steve Moak and Vernon Parker plus Chandler city Councilman Martin Sepulveda. One interesting twist is that County Supervisor Don Stapley has been conducting a poll in the district.

Stapley is likely to jump into the race, not because he can win it, but because he has a better chance of winning a Congressional Race than he does getting re-elected. I’m a bit sympathetic to Stapley--the way that Andrew Thomas abused him was truly pathetic. However, I believe that there was at least some fire under all that smoke. And I think that Stapley ended his career as a Supervisor when he endorsed Jerry Lewis. (Plus, it seems like he votes with Mary Rose more than he votes with the Republicans.)

Stapley has already drawn a strong opponent in Steve Chucri. Chucri is well connected, well financed and well organized. I don’t see any way that Stapley can keep his seat. Of course, I don’t see any way that he can win the primary in District 9 either.

It looks to me like Steve Moak—who has significant residual name recognition and the ability to self fund—will take win that race.

So it looks to me like Sinema verses Moak in the General. That’s a great race. I think it will be a Republican wave year, so I have to call the race for Moak.

(Take these predictions for what they are worth. Last week I thought that Paton and Newman would face off in Tucson. I still think that Newman will run, but Paton has announced for the eastern Arizona Seat.)

Footnote:

Obviously I'm friends with Schweikert, so consider the source, but I have some thoughts on Quayle's move. I think it's being viewed in Washington as a totally selfish act. Quayle is by far the best candidate the Repblicans can run in District 9. He's an incumbent with a strong name and a proven ability to raise money. But instead of competing in a swing district, he's chosing to challenge another conservative Republican. If Republicans lose District 9, it will be because Quayle chose to play it safe.

Who will win? Those of you who have lived in Scottsdale for most of your life will remember where you were in 1978 when Bob Crane was killed. Schweikert was washing dishes at the Windmill Theatre where Crane performed... Quayle was still in diapers and was being shuttled between Washington DC and Indiana.

Schweikert has been running for Congress since high school. He first ran for the legislature in 1988--when Quayle was eleven--and was first elected in 1990. He ran for Congress in 1994, ran for Treasurer in 2004, Congress in 2008 and then won 1n 2010. That's a lot of built in name recognition.

How about money? I'd guess that Quayle will ultimately raise more money. But campaign money--like most everything else--has diminishing marginal utility. If Schweikert spends $ 2 million in a primary and Quayle spends $3 million, they will both have his a saturation point.

So I say that based on personal connections in the district, name recognition and political experience, the District goes to Schweikert. I concede that Quayle will probably have a monitary advantage, but will probably run a high overhead campain, so the dollars per voter amount will probably be the same and both will candidates will reach a full saturation point.

One thing is clear. If Schweikert defeats Quayle in 2012, there's nothing standing between Schweikert and McCain's seat in 2016. (Except possibly McCain) Frankly, since Schweikert and Quayle were destined to go head to head for the Senate in 2016, it would be better for Schweikert if the contest were soon and confined to Scottsdale instead of 4 years from now and state wide.

Those are my thoughts. I respect the Quayle family but Schweikert is my friend and my loyalties are clear. If you disagree with my analysis there's plenty of room in the comment section.

Who Checks the Fact Checkers?

2012-01-26T10:12:52-05:00

Here's a paragraph from the Republic's latest Gabby Giffords update. Can you find the obvious error?

She was elected to the state House in 2000 and ran for the state Senate in 2002 after the death of Tucson Sen. Andy Nichols, becoming at 32 the youngest state senator in Arizona history. She resigned from that position in December 2005 to run for the congressional seat being vacated by retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe, a Republican.

Youngest in history? Give me a break. Anyone who has any experience with history knows that there have been plenty of young people in both the House and Senate. When I served in the House, we had an "under 30 caucus". Keith Bee was a member of that caucus and was was elected to the House at 24 and then elected to the Senate at 26. That's just one obvious example of a Senator who was younger than Gabby.

Does is matter? Yes. The Republic has been running a series called "Arizona Fact Check" in which the goal is to "Keep Arizona Honest." There's only two problems with this approach...politicians are more accurate than journalists, and the Republic uses these "fact checks" to ding people the reporters don't like.

For example, check out how many twists and turns reporters Stephanie Russo and Alia Beard Rau had to go through in order to declare Senator Al Melvin's statement about the Republican Caucus "false."

Or how about this labryinth that Dennis Wagner has to create in order to claim that David Schweikert's assertion that stimulus money was used to fund Fast and Furious is somehow false.

This from the same crew that never bothered to cover Fast and Furious when it was unfolding and who often botch even the most basic facts.