AZ 5th Congressional District Poll
January 6, 2010 By 43 Comments
The following press release was issued by American Viewpoint
AZ 5th Congressional District Poll: Harry Mitchell Re-Elect at 41, Over 10-Point GOP Generic Advantage;
GOP Primary Wide Open – 70% Undecided
Alexandria, VA – Today American Viewpoint, a nationally recognized public opinion research firm, released the findings of a survey conducted in Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District with 300 likely general election voters that was commissioned by newly filed candidate Dr. Chris Salvino. Interviews were conducted August 31-September 1, 2009.
“This is the clearest evidence yet that Congressman Harry Mitchell is extremely vulnerable in his re-election effort and his numbers are likely even worse today than they were in the fall,” said Randall Gutermuth, Vice President with American Viewpoint. “Making matters worse for Mitchell is that voters nationally have become stridently anti-incumbent and considering Mitchell’s 40 year tenure as career politician his chances for re-election look even more bleak. Harry Mitchell has the unenviable task of pleasing his GOP-leaning district while also having to follow the Speaker Pelosi agenda.”
Some of the key findings:
When respondents were asked whom they would support, either the Republican candidate or Democrat candidate, Democrats were in trouble, marking the first time in 4 years the district has flipped:
Generic Ballot Test:
Total Republican: 45%
Total Democrat: 32%
Even worse news for Mitchell is that his re-election number was way under 50%, a key indicator of where an incumbent Member of Congress should be. When asked if Mitchell has done his job in Congress well enough to deserve re-election versus giving a new person a chance:
Mitchell Re-Elect:
Re-Elect Mitchell: 41%
New Person: 41%
In the GOP Primary, 70% of the respondents were undecided. While David Schweikert leads among announced candidates, surprisingly the former nominee and long time local politician severely underperforms his own electoral success from just two years ago, seemingly unable to galvanize GOP support:
GOP Primary
Undecided: 70%
David Schweikert: 26%
Jim Ward: 3%
Chris Salvino: 1%
Erik Wnuck: 0%
Term limits, and term lengths
January 6, 2010 By 1 Comment
There’s a film clip circulating on the Internet featuring what is obviously a legislative body in session.
A member is making a speech from the podium while other members can be seen in various frivolous poses, including playing video games on their desktops. It is being used to encourage term limits for Congress.
Only the legislative body pictured is the California Assembly, which has been term-limited for 20 years. It doesn’t work.
One of the great by-products of federalism is the ability it gives states to find out how well certain things will work – or not. States like Arizona having term limits aren’t governed any better than those that don’t.
One problem with term limit proponents is their belief that the Founding Fathers wanted everybody to just serve for a bit and go home. I devoted an entire column recently to listing all the major figures in our nation’s birth, and noting how from Sam Adams to James Monroe they all spent considerable time in various public offices, both appointive and elective, and we should be grateful to them for that.
The short-term service argument is a myth. What matters is the ability and quality of the character of those we choose.
One thing has changed in the last 200 years, and term limit supporters would be wise to notice – and propose remedies – for it. We allowed the terms of office to be lengthened to the degree that too many public officials are far less reachable.
Patrick Henry served seven terms as Governor of Virginia, John Hancock six as Governor of Massachusetts. Those were one-year terms. Most local and state officials had one-year terms well into the 19th Century.
Debates over ratification of the original constitution focused not on term limits but on term length. Many complaints were made about allowing members of the U.S. House to serve for two full years.
The idea of representatives as policy makers as opposed to actual representatives became popular with academics and among the original Progressives towards the end of the 19th Century, when terms of office began to be extended. The argument given was “we don’t want our representatives to be constantly campaigning.”
Translation – we don’t want them going back to the folks who elect them to discover the ideas we’re selling them on really suck. We need to isolate them from their constituents for as long as possible to get all this unpopular crap passed.
Two-year terms for governors and others became common at the beginning of this century, driven by a coalition of policy wonks and politicians who wanted less supervision. That has now been extended almost everywhere to four-year terms. The group of elitists centering around former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is pushing it for legislators.
One unintended consequence of the four-year term in Arizona has been the incredible growth in recalls, particularly in local governments like town councils and school boards where the jurisdictions are still small enough to be handled by citizen rebellion. It would make more sense to simply put the terms back to two years.
It would also make sense to reduce terms for all state and county officials as well as city councils and school boards. One can directly chart the growth of government at all levels to the growth in the length of terms for those who did the growing.
One additional advantage is that off-year and local elections are great message senders to those holding power. Having them twice as often would greatly enhance that communications device and give us less reliance on guys like Rasmussen and Zogby for national trends.
Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.
PR: Thursday ‘Carbon Crooks’ Protest!
January 6, 2010 By 3 Comments
Grassroots to Protest “Carbon Crooks” Thursday in Scottsdale
SCOTTSDALE—The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) announced today that it will team up with the Scottsdale Tea Party and FreedomWorks to protest economically damaging “cap-and-tax” legislation at the Edison Electric Institute’s annual board of directors meeting in Scottsdale on Thursday morning, January 7.
The protests will take place from 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. at the Scottsdale Road entrance to the Fairmont Scottsdale Hotel, at 7575 East Princess Drive, in Scottsdale (85255) and will feature marchers holding signs with slogans such as “Welcome, Carbon Crooks!” Above the Fairmont, an aerial protest banner will read, “EEI: Don’t wreck America with cap and tax.” AFP national policy director Phil Kerpen will be present to answer questions from the press and the public about the economic effects of the cap-and-trade proposals moving in Congress. Arizona Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Eastern Counties) is also scheduled to speak.
“The cap-and-tax bill would do serious damage to America’s economy and standard of living, said Kerpen. “The electric utility industry should be fighting the legislation with all its resources, but instead, it’s lobbying in favor of cap-and-tax in the vain hope of cutting a deal with the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress.”
The aerial banner will be sponsored by JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy, who explained that the electric utility industry is apparently giving up on efforts make profits by producing more electricity and selling it at competitive prices. “Instead,” Milloy said, “in exchange for supporting the Obama administration agenda, the utilities want government-guaranteed profits for selling less electricity. That means consumers and taxpayers will be picking up the tab—paying more for energy and getting less.”
The protests will occur as EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) address the utility CEOs inside the resort. “The presence of Administrator Jackson and Sen. Graham, along with such notorious rentseeking CEOs as John Rowe of Exelon and Jeff Sterba of PNM Resources should be of great interest to grassroots activists,” said AFP Arizona director Tom Jenney. “We need to expose the huge corporate welfare handouts hidden in the cap-and-trade legislation.”
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 500,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 24 state chapters. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
Fix for Arizona budget deficit is spending discipline
January 6, 2010 By 3 Comments
by Tom Patterson
Goldwater Institute
2009 was a disaster for Arizona state government. Gov. Jan Brewer and our lawmakers had two jobs. To dig out of the gaping budget hole left by Janet Napolitano and to prevent future meltdowns. Unfortunately, our leaders pulled up short on both counts.
Here’s the good news: Budget reductions of the magnitude necessary to close our monstrous deficit are possible. Part of the evidence comes from the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity, which has provided a detailed scenario of how the budget could be balanced. It’s strong medicine; but the plan could work if our leaders are strong enough to make it happen.
Another note of hope comes from Louisiana, where Gov. Bobby Jindal is leading an effort to get his troubled state back on its feet. They are serious about reducing the size of government through “streamlining, consolidation and elimination.” Thousands of positions and over 70 boards and commissions have been terminated. A broad range of privatization proposals are being developed.
Lawmakers should seize this opportunity to make some long-needed changes that will prevent similar debacles in the future. The most important is a constitutional spending limitation. If last decades’ campaign to restrict annual government spending increases to an amount equal to population growth and inflation (with voter-approved exceptions) had succeeded, this crisis would never have occurred.
Imagine an Arizona with a balanced budget, a growing economy, plentiful jobs and a friendly climate for businesses and families. We can have that Arizona. It all starts with spending discipline.
Tom Patterson is chairman of the Goldwater Institute and a former state senator. A longer version of this article originally appeared in the East Valley Tribune.
