Kevin McCarthy: Three House Seats In Play In Arizona

Wednesday, Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was on the Hugh Hewitt Show with Congressman John Campbell. McCarthy and Campbell both gave a few minutes to assessing US House races across the country and began their conversation with our Arizona.

According to Majority Leader McCarthy, Arizona has three congressional races in play and likely pickups.

Top of the list is CD-1 where Andy Tobin is challenging Kirkpatrick; CD-2 where Martha McSally is coming on strong against Ron Barber and finally CD-9 where Wendy Rogers has a good chance of defeating Kyrsten Sinema in the General Election.

What this means is Republican Congressional leadership is engaged in what is happening here in Arizona.  Don’t be surprised if the NRCC throws some resources – money, ads, logistic support, endorsements, etc. – in order to ensure success in winning these three congressional House seats.

Here’s the transcript from Wednesday’s Hugh Hewitt Show:

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy:  Arizona-1, Kirkpatrick seat, this is an R+4, meaning it leans a Republican seat. She has been in one term within here. I think it’s a great opportunity. You’ve got Andy Tobin, they just had their primary, it just got determined. Andy is a conservative over there in the state legislature, actually was the speaker, great individual on all the tough issues. He’s led so many conservative movements there. The second is Arizona-2. This is Barber’s seat, currently R+3. Martha McSally, now Martha came last time less than 1,200 votes from winning the seat. Martha is the first female pilot in combat. She flew the A-10, remarkable woman, served our country so well. She would make such a great member. Those two in Arizona, you’ve got another one in Arizona, I’d say Arizona-9. We’ve got Wendy Rogers is our candidate again against Sinema. She’s a freshmen. This is R+1. All three of those are in play.

To ensure victory this November, let’s make sure we get out and work hard to get these fine candidates elected.

Scott Smith Flips and Withers over Kyoto Protocol

The race for Arizona governor took to the national airwaves on Hugh Hewitt’s show today as the conservative talk show host took the former Mayor of Mesa to task over his record on the Kyoto Protocol.

The conversation originated as Hugh Hewitt discussed his op-ed in the Washington Examiner in which he made the case for electing Doug Ducey as Arizona’s next governor – “Unlike his ice cream, Doug Ducey won’t melt in Arizona’s political heat

Hugh lambasted Ducey’s main foe Scott Smith and Governor Jan Brewer as big government Republicans (Brewer endorsed Smith last week for his support of expanding Obamacare in Arizona.) In addition to Obamacare expansion, Hugh mentioned Smith’s support for Common Core and the Kyoto Protocol. Scott Smith Twitter trolls then began attacking Hewitt online which prompted more discussion about Smith’s record.

Scott Smith then tweeted to Hewitt to let him on the show so he (Hewitt) would learn something

Smith Hewitt Tweet

Hugh cleared the phone lines and invited the mayor to call in to discuss his positions.

Scott Smith called in and Hewitt then proceeded to cross-examine him on why he supported the US Conference Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (Kyoto Protocol) as the 1,000 signatory.

SmithUSConfKP

Smith then tried to argue why he signed off as the 1,000 mayor but wouldn’t mount a defense why he opposed provisions of the document.

Here’s the full audio of the call:

As the audio reveals, Scott Smith flipped and flopped over his support for the Agreement but then withered over his objections.

Hewitt pressed Smith if he even reviewed the the press release announcing his support of the agreement and why he didn’t demand a retraction, correction or clarification of his signature on Kyoto Protocol Agreement. Smith’s answer was he didn’t review it and didn’t want to cause waves.

Any listener who heard the exchange is left to believe that if Mayor Scott Smith was willing to sign off on the Kyoto Protocol without any protest, what kind of leadership could we expect from a Governor Smith when the EPA begins pressuring Arizona?

Call it a flip, flop or a wither. We don’t thing Scott Smith is up to the job of Governor.

=======================

A follow-up: Negotiations appear to be taking place via Twitter for Smith to call in again to the Hugh Hewitt show on Tuesday. We’ll wait and see if that actually happens.

ICYMI: The Hugh Hewitt – Doug Ducey Ice Cream Social Interviews!

Ducey

Monday’s live broadcast with Hugh Hewitt and ice cream social with local elected officials was a huge success! I’m grateful to everyone who attended or tuned-in during the three-hour show to learn more about what I want to accomplish as Arizona’s next governor.

If you missed it, click the play button or bolded “click here” text below to listen to individual segments from your favorite elected officials.

CLICK HERE to listen to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker • CLICK HERE to listen to former Senator John Kyl • CLICK HERE to listen to Congressman Trent Franks • CLICK HERE to listen to former Congressman John Shadegg • CLICK HERE to listen to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery • CLICK HERE to listen to Arizona State Representative Paul Boyer • CLICK HERE to listen to City of Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio • CLICK HERE to listen to The Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick

I’d especially like to thank Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Congressman Trent Franks, former Senator Jon Kyl, former Congressman John Shadegg, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Arizona State Representative Paul Boyer, City of Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCicco and The Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick for joining me and Hugh on-air to discuss Arizona’s future and why they’re supporting my campaign.

There was no denying the enthusiasm at this event, for both Arizona’s future and my campaign. I’m confident that with your help, we will see success in August and beyond.

See you on the campaign trail,

Doug

Hugh Hewitt: Memo to the States’ Governors and AGs on The Decision On Obamacare’s Exchanges: Go Churchill Or Go Home

By Hugh Hewitt
So brilliant needed to be reposted from Townhall.com.

With the president mobilizing for a barnstorming tour in support of massive tax hikes and to, in effect, overturn last week’s vote to keep the House in GOP hands and the gavel in John Boehner’s —details here on the president’s plan— the GOP is getting organized in the House and laying down markers.

The media is focused on speculation about the “big deal” and the various scandals, but a huge story is brewing that few are watching.

The deadline for the most important political and legal decisions of the near term is being made in every state: Whether or not to establish a state health insurance exchange pursuant to Obamacare. The original deadline for each governor to decide was this Friday, but HHS has graciously given the states another month to decide which poison to pick: Subservience via establishment of a puppet exchange or takeover of the state’s insurance business via a big foot federal health exchange. The rules the feds have dictated the states must follow in making their choice are here.

Yesterday, Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama announced that Alabama would not be establishing the exchange or expanding Medicaid. The latter is not surprising, as the expansion will quickly eat away at state budgets.

But Bentley’s position on the exchange –he joins at least Alaska, Florida and Texas in just saying no– is very welcome and hopefully a model for other Republican governors who must by law indicate their decisions on the exchange set-up by mid-December. Other states ought also to study the example set by Oklahoma, and sue to overturn the Hobbesian choice on exchanges being forced on them.

Only one state lawsuit against the forced choice on health exchanges has been filed —by the Sooners’ AG, and the amended complaint is here— and the national opposition to Obamacare should be looking for other governors to say no and other attorneys general to file similar challenges to the health exchange jam down.

The amended complaint of the State of Oklahoma argues in crucial part:

 

II. The New Claims 

8. In addition to that claim, Plaintiff raises new claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to final federal regulations (the “Final Rule”) that were issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 36B, as added by Section 1401 of the Act, while proceedings in this action were stayed. The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret.

9. More specifically, Sections 1311 and 1321(c) of the Act allows States to choose to establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange” to operate in the State to facilitate execution of the Act’s key provisions. If a State elects not to establish an Exchange under Section 1311, Section 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Exchange to operate in that state.

10. Under the Act, this choice has important consequences for the State’s people and the State’s economy, because health insurance premium tax credits for low-income employed individuals and employer obligations under the Act both depend on which alternative the State chooses. If the State elects to establish its own Exchange, the Federal Government will make “advance payments” of premium tax credits to insurance companies on behalf of some of the State’s residents to subsidize health insurance enrollment through the State-created Exchange, but the payment of the subsidy for even one employee triggers costly obligations on the part of the employer that would not be triggered in a non-electing State, placing the electing State at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and job growth.

11. The Act leaves this policy judgment to each State and provides a mechanism for each State to choose the alternative it thinks is better for its people. The Final Rule upsets this balance by providing, contrary to the Act, that qualifying taxpayers are eligible for premium tax credits and “advance payments” if they enroll for health insurance through the Exchange where they live, regardless of whether it is a State-established Exchange or an HHS-established Exchange. Thus, if the Final Rule is permitted to stand, federal subsidies will be paid under circumstances not authorized by the Congress; employers will be subjected to liabilities and obligations under circumstances not authorized by Congress; and States will be deprived of the opportunity created by the Act to choose for itself whether creating a competitive environment to promote economic and job growth is better for its people than access to federal subsidies.

12. Oklahoma has not established or elected to establish an Exchange, and does not expect to do so. As a result, under the plain terms of the Act, employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the Employer Mandate because of a determination that an Oklahoma resident employed by the employer in Oklahoma is entitled to advance payment of a premium tax credit because of enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma. However, the Final Rule purports to make such an individual eligible for a premium tax credit based on enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma, with the result that an Oklahoma employer employing such an individual will be exposed to liability under the Employer Mandate under circumstances not provided for under the Act. Thus, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Final Rule invalid.

 

This is a narrow argument aimed at a specific rule, but there are other arguments to make, including the damage done to federalism when, upon saying no, the enormous supertanker of Obamacare sails into a state’s legal harbor via the federal exchange and smashes all the docks and other ships, displacing not merely the opportunity to run an exchange but destroying countless other state-administered relationships and regulatory balances.

States have to defend themselves against the giant takeover of states’ powers and duties by Obamacare. The decision to “just say no” so has to be taken by mid-December. Encourage your governor to say no and to sue alongside of Oklahoma, perhaps engaging one of the country’s leading experts on structural federalism like Georgetown’s Randy Barnett or my own colleague at Chapman John Eastman to make the arguments to preserve the state’s legislative integrity and their independence from D.C. Not only is this the right way to proceed for a state intent on protecting its citizens from an ever-expanding federal government, it may also present the Supreme Court with a second bite at the Obamacare apple via a different set of issues not dependent on the “is the penalty a tax” debate.

Some states are tired of the fight and their law departments not eager to spend another year battling the DOJ.

But that isn’t their choice. That choice belongs to their governor and their attorney general. Those who don’t choose to fight now cannot expect conservatives to fight for them in the future. Go Churchill or go home.

The status of states’ decision-making on the exchanges is reviewed on a state-by-state basis here.

The left is attempting to declare the Obamacare fight over. It isn’t. It is a 15 round fight. Conservatives won rounds when they elected Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and then Scott Brown after the debate was begun. The left won a round when the law passed was passed, and it won a round when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but conservatives won in that opinion as well, on Medicaid and on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

The left scored a knock-down with the president’s re-election, but the fight isn’t over if the conservatives opposed to the law get up off the canvas and fight on. Oklahoma has, and some states have joined them, though not yet in the courts. They should, and soon. Obamacare was nightmare before the election, and it is a nightmare still. The president’s re-election was manifestly not about Obamacare, and the decision is not final and won’t be until every good argument is made and every opportunity given the Supreme Court to review the law in full.

Even if the legal fight should fail, it is important for federalism that many states pass on becoming puppets of the feds via the state exchanges. The fiasco-in-waiting of the federal exchange should be on the president’s head, with blame not easily shifted to bungling governors. The president broke it, so he should buy and operate it.

But only after every argument has been made, and the Supreme Court offered the opportunity to rule on the law as a whole.

Hugh Hewitt in Arizona for Paul Gosar, David Schweikert, Jesse Kelly

Please join conservative radio talk show host, Hugh Hewitt on Monday, September 20th for a special fundraising event for Republican candidates, Paul Gosar (CD-1), David Schweikert (CD-5) and Jesse Kelly (CD-8).

The event will be held at Arizona Republican headquarters from 5:30 – 8:30 PM. GOP headquarters is located at 3501 N. 24th Street in Phoenix (map).

A website has been set up at www.ArizonaAgainstPelosi.com to RSVP to the event.

Please join Hugh Hewitt in supporting these fine conservative Republicans in the pursuit to fire Pelosi and restore our Republic.