Strike Everything

Few sights say more about the end of a political career than a politician vacating his office.

On Dec. 8, one of Arizona’s longest-serving lawmakers packed his belongings in cardboard boxes, descended the stairs of the Senate and loaded them onto his car.

But Senate President Bob Burns’ departure reveals something more.

It is a result of term-limit laws that have sucked institutional knowledge out of the Capitol by not allowing legislators to stay long enough to become experts in how the multiple aspects of government work.

Burns is a member of a fading club of legislators who came on the political scene before laws limited how long politicians can stay in office.

As a result, they accumulated a great deal of knowledge about how government works, particularly when it comes to budgeting. And Burns probably knows the state budget process better than anyone. These lawmakers could tell which ideas work and more importantly, which ones don’t. Some could recite how many acre-feet of water were being diverted from the Colorado River to quench the thirst of Arizona’s expanding population.

They also tended to be less confrontational, although some could be acerbic and blunt.

This year, the Senate saw the biggest exodus of members because of term limits. In all, 11 senators were termed-out; a few others decided to retire.

Also retiring is Rep. Jack Brown, a Democrat from St. Johns who has been a lawmaker since the 1960s.

But while some are leaving, others are returning.

Sen. Debbie McCune Davis, a Phoenix Democrat who first joined the Legislature as a House member in 1979, will be joining the House next year. Lela Alston, a Democrat from Phoenix who served in the Senate from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, won her House race and will be back in the Capitol.

Burns had pretty much finished moving his stuff out – his office was already bare except for a box or two – when he took a break to talk to the Arizona Capitol Times.

It was bright outside, probably in the mid-70s, a perfect day for biking. In fact, if you wonder how a 72-year old man could keep up with all-night budget negotiations it’s because Burns is an endurance athlete. He often pedals his recumbent bike for more than 20 miles a day.

Burns, who has served the Legislature for two decades, did leave a few items in the drawer of his desk: A stapler, some pens, scissors, paper clips and a rarely used memo pad. They were there when he inherited the office from the previous Senate president, he explained.

But he is also leaving behind something he prefers he didn’t have to – a state budget that is grossly out of balance.

“It’s kind of leaving a job that’s not completely finished,” he said. “It’s going to be extremely difficult to get back on track.”

Burns, who is largely known for his cool demeanor, can be really funny at times. That day, he took a memento out from a box from his years in office – a miniature of a pig with battery-operated wings. He said he used to hang the flying pig from the ceiling during Appropriations Committee hearings and it would go round and round.

“That’s when the budget gets fixed,” he said with a laugh.

Burns’ career has been a constant battle to rein in spending. He won some fights, and lost some.

He and other fiscal hawks successfully pushed down the state’s debt load in the 1990s only for it to balloon back in the next decade. He saw government feed its appetite for spending with an unsustainable level of revenue under former governor Janet Napolitano. In those same years Republicans also pushed for tax breaks that chipped away at the states’ revenue base.

All these budget decisions would come to haunt Arizona when the country’s economy tanked, exposing the state to its worst fiscal crisis in history.

It fell on Burns to lead his colleagues in the quest to find solutions to the state’s multi-billion dollar budget shortfall, and to say it was tough would be a gross understatement.

But if those who wielded power like Burns had a singular achievement in the last two years, it is that the doors of government offices have been kept mostly open. Programs and agencies were severely cut, but core government services are more or less intact.

Burns isn’t exactly happy with the budget solutions that have been adopted.

And who would be? Most of them were temporary fixes. Some, like borrowing, simply pushed painful decisions off into the future. Burns tried to put a lid on borrowing this year, but his proposal ultimately didn’t get through.

Still, the former G.E. and Honeywell programming analyst has had a very rich political career. As Senate president, he leaves the world of legislating on top of his field, and not very many can say that.

For now, at least, Burns signals he’s taking a break and taking it easy. When asked what he’s going to do next, his standard answer is to say he’s “running for the golf course.”

He’ll be spending more of his time in Sedona, where he and his wife have just finished constructing a house.

You’ll probably still see the outgoing Senate president trying to reach the top, though it’s likely he’ll be on his bike on the side of a hill.

-Luige del Puerto

Three incumbent Democratic state senators appear to be on their way out, based on unofficial and preliminary results on Tuesday night, dramatically altering the political landscape at the capitol.

If they failed to mount a late comeback, the defeat of Assistant Senate Minority Leader Rebecca Rios in District 23, Sen. Amanda Aguirre in District, and Sen. Manny Alvarez in District 25 paves the way for Republicans to gain a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

There are currently 18 Republicans in the Senate. Victories in the three districts would push their number to 21, one vote more than needed to enact legislation that needs a two-thirds vote.

So far, Rios is losing to Steve Smith, Aguirre to Tea Party candidate Don Shooter and Alvarez to former legislator Gail Griffin.

“It’s a very difficult night for Democrats,” groaned Sen. Paula Aboud, a Democrat from Tucson. “It’s going to be really a tough year.”

Rios’ exit would have an immediate impact on the Democratic caucus.

Rios was in line to succeed as the minority leader next year. Democrats would need to scramble to select someone to take her place if she loses.

Senate Democrats are expected to meet tomorrow to choose their next set of leaders.

But a commanding control of the Capitol machinery poses both an opportunity and a risk for Republicans.

“If we end up with that big of a margin in the House also, then it definitely would be on to us to balance the budget,” said Sen. Ron Gould, a conservative Republican from Lake Havasu.

- Luige del Puerto

Sen. Sylvia Allen, who is well poised to retain her eastern Arizona seat in Legislative District 5, has sent a “thank you” email to supporters, calling her constituents “the best Americans in our country!”

Allen, a Republican from Snowflake, typed the email in red, 72-point font. She has captured 25,312 votes so far; her Democratic challenger, Elaine Bohlmeyer, trails with 12,712 votes.

Preliminary election results look promising for Republicans, who hope to gain supermajority control of the state Senate.

Republicans hold the early lead in legislative Districts 23, 24 and 25, which are currently Democratic seats.

Republicans Sens. Linda Gray and Al Melvin are also leading in District 10 and District 26, respectively.

Only Wendy Rogers is trailing Democrat Rep. David Schapira in District 17.

–Luige del Puerto

There are no surprises in Legislative District 1, where Sen. Steve Pierce has pulled away from his Democratic challenger, Bob Donahue.

Pierce, a Republican from Prescott, has captured 40,910 votes – nearly doubling Donahue’s 21,654, according to the latest unofficial tally from the Secretary of State’s Office.

I was on the way home Oct. 15 when my editor called to tell me that Sen. Jorge Garcia had died.

I spent the next few hours confirming it and calling his colleagues to ask for their thoughts about the Democratic leader.

It was only later that night that I had a chance to reflect on the last four years that I had known him. I keep a distance from my sources, but it was difficult not to be friendly with Garcia, and I was often in his office the past two years to interview or simply chat with him.

He was a good source. He helped me get documents or information that I couldn’t get through the usual channels. If you needed to get his caucus’ pulse on issues, he was also the go-to lawmaker.

But he also always gave his honest assessment of the situation, and he had an independent streak that sometimes irritated his party-mates.

What immediately struck me about Garcia was how unassuming he was. He spoke plainly, and he had this habit of shifting his weight in tiny steps while giving a floor speech. He also always wore this smile as if he was thinking about the punchline of a joke that only he knew.

I learned from his family that he was just as austere at home. His wife and daughters said he jettisoned anything wasteful – that applied to buying “Vitamin Water.” He often ordered only a side salad whenever his family dined out because he knew there would be enough left over on their plates to fill him.

I asked him once what he did to get away from the hassles of work. He replied that he enjoyed cleaning the pool.

I began really paying attention to what he said after a Republican senator – it might have been Sen. John Huppenthal of Chandler – told me Garcia had an uncanny grasp of budget issues. The two lawmakers sat opposite the table when the two parties negotiated past budgets.

I sought his take on the 2008 elections, when many of his party-mates were predicting or hoping that Democrats would upend the Republican majority. He told me the best they could hope for was to come out of the election with the same number of seats. He was right; Republicans made gains that year, including grabbing a Senate seat held by a Democrat.

I often challenged him on his positions, even while we were just chatting. I remember repeatedly asking him why, for example, Senate Democrats weren’t more aggressive in pushing their agenda. I argued that the minority could, for example, throw monkey wrenches in the legislative process by challenging Republicans on every procedural point. He responded that it wouldn’t change things and would merely irritate colleagues.

In hindsight, maybe he simply didn’t want to get in the way of accruing munitions that his party could use against Republicans. But maybe he also saw that grandstanding or putting up temporary roadblocks only delayed the inevitable; that is, if the majority had the votes, they would inevitably be able to do what they want.

Garcia, 57, was intelligent; one colleague said you underestimated him at your own peril. But he was often too honest, and I didn’t think he excelled at playing political games. He once advocated for an alternative budget plan last year that didn’t include cuts other than what Republicans already approved in the year before, even though the state was deep in deficit. He said he wanted to show the majority that there were other options; I thought the move merely helped solidify Republicans’ opinion that Democrats weren’t serious in solving the budget problem.

Garcia had been in politics for a long time, but he never displayed cynicism. He didn’t verbalize it, but I sensed his belief in the system – that it could effectuate changes and that his involvement could produce some good for his community.

The last time I saw Garcia was before the primary election. I asked him how his campaign for the Corporation Commission was going, and he said he’s unlikely to qualify for Clean Elections funding. When I asked him why, he said his energy was zapped out of him.

I spoke to him on the phone a few more times, and each time his voice sounded more and more labored. He died on Oct. 15; he had been suffering from a rare disease that affected his heart.

It wasn’t his politics that I remember most about Garcia. It was that one night – one of several nights when the Capitol community kept vigil trying to solve the state’s budget woes – when he said I could use his office sofa if I needed to rest.

The figures paint a grim picture: Arizona’s jobless rate stands at 9.7 percent, revenues have come in below forecast, the state’s budget deficit could reach $700 million in the current fiscal year.

And now the U.S. Census puts the number of Arizonans in households earning below the federal poverty level at 1.4 million. That means we’re second worst in the nation – next to Mississippi.

I have been staring at some of these numbers for days, but somehow they never sank in.

Not until recently.

A few events that all happened in one day delivered the most sobering of realizations – to me, at least – about how dire the situation is.

True, I know people who have lost their homes to foreclosure. A friend is in the process of short-selling his home. Another couple I know is moving out of their house in a few days.

But foreclosure is so rampant it has become the norm. No one is surprised to learn that the house with the overgrown weeds around the bend has finally put up a “for sale” sign.

So when our neighbor, a chemist, told me a few days ago that he finally found a job after 19 months, well then, the news really cheered me up. In fact, he’s holding a “back-to-work” party on Sept. 18.

Our neighbor had been out of work ever since we moved into the area last year, and I had been printing out any job notices I’d get and inserting them in a crack in his door.

That afternoon, I was withdrawing money when I noticed two balance inquiry slips at the ATM. I thought of minding my own business, but of course I couldn’t help it. So I looked: One showed a savings account with an available balance of $105.62.

The other showed exactly $3.76 in the checking account.

There are a thousand plausible reasons why I shouldn’t be affected. Maybe the slips’ owners were just waiting for their paycheck to go through. It was obvious I couldn’t draw anything except the most cursory and probably skewed assumptions from a piece of paper.

But then maybe, just maybe, one of them really just had $3.76 in the bank. I couldn’t shake the thought from my head, particularly since we bought groceries later that day. I couldn’t remember how much we spent, but I can assure you I wouldn’t have been able to afford it if I had only $3.76 in the bank.

I’m sure you know the feeling when everything comes into focus. Well, it was clear to me that while most of the rhetoric on the campaign trail is about immigration and a myriad other important issues, such as the quality of Ben Quayle’s supposed blog posts, some people are just barely making it.

Later that day a friend of mine told my wife that her work hours have been cut. She said the only thing they’re pretty much buying nowadays is food for their two babies.

The political rhetoric will likely heighten in the general election, when candidates will try to more sharply contrast their positions against their opponents. I hope they focus on how to revive the economy, too.

But maybe that’s putting too much faith in the electoral process. Do elections really change the state’s – the country’s – direction?

Here’s what I know: I want our neighbor to keep his job. I want my wife’s friend to get more work hours. I want the owners of those balance inquiry slips to have more money in the bank, or at least enough money to afford the groceries we bought that day.

- Luige del Puerto

After weeks of being hammered on his position on Social Security, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly countered the criticism in a television ad to be aired this week in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

In the ad, Kelly said U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the incumbent Democrat, is “distorting” his Social Security plan in order to distract voters from her record of supporting the federal bail-outs and the federal health care law, and of opposing SB1070, Arizona’s most recent immigration law.

Kelly’s position on Social Security and Medicare has been a central narrative of the Giffords’ campaign.

The Giffords campaign is seeking to portray Kelly as an extremist with “dangerous ideas.” A recent ad produced by the campaign called Kelly a “risk we can’t afford.”

“What kind of guy says that Medicare is a scam, or a Ponzi scheme? His ideas are dangerous,” Giffords’ campaign manager Rodd McLeod, stated in a news release.

Kelly’s new ad counters that his Social Security plan calls for “(honoring) our commitments” to seniors while giving younger workers a choice.

Kelly said he would keep the benefits at their current level for those who already receiving Social Security and for those who already are paying into it. For those who are just entering the work force, Kelly said he wants to provide an option to put a portion of their contributions into a personal savings account.

“We need to save Social Security by transitioning to a more sustainable financial model,” he said. “My plan guarantees that will happen. Giffords has no plan and has done nothing to work toward a solution.”

Giffords’ campaign said Kelly is attempting to give himself a “makeover” after calling for the elimination of Social Security and Medicare during the primary election season.

Meanwhile, Giffords also released a television ad that seeks to show her as tough on border security. The ad shows Cochise County veterinarian and rancher Dr. Gary Thrasher saying the congresswoman is “probably the best advocate for border security that we’ve ever had down here.”

Illegal immigration is an inescapable subject in Arizona’s heated elections, but several policymakers are actively trying to steer the conversation back to the elephant in the room – the economy.

And some are encountering some limited success in moving the discussion beyond the highly emotional and complex subject of immigration.

Senate Majority Whip Steve Pierce said he started seeing the shift about a month ago.

Earlier, he said, when he spoke in forums people always wanted to bring the topic back to immigration and weren’t really interested in fiscal issues.

“Nationally, I think things are so bad… people are changing. They are starting to be more aware and they are more interested in the economy,” he said.

Immigration has dominated the headlines ever since the Legislature passed SB1070, Arizona’s strict new immigration law.

The law has also shaped the tone of the campaigns. Many credit the law in giving Gov. Jan Brewer a clear path to the Republican nomination, which she easily cinched on Aug. 24.

In the meantime, discussion about Arizona’s economy receded in the background.

But many policymakers want it back on the front seat.

“The 14th Amendment stuff (and) all that – that can wait,” said Sen. Frank Antenori, a conservative Republican from Tucson and a strong advocate for states rights.

Antenori is referring to potential legislation to end birthright citizenship.

Like most Republicans, Antenori backed and defended SB1070.

But he worries about what would happen when the recently approved one-cent sales tax hike goes away in three years.

“If we don’t have this economy going to make up that revenue shortfall by then, we are in big, big trouble,” he said.

Antenori wants lawmakers to hammer out an economic plan before the session starts next year, arguing that any fiscal policy takes time to make an impact.

“The day we hit the ground in the Legislature, our No. 1 mission had better be figuring out how to make Arizona the most business-friendly economic juggernaut of the Southwest, even of the United States, if we can,” he said.

Many others, like Pierce, share the sentiment.

“Illegal immigration is important,” Pierce said. “But while everybody has been watching that the state is on fire, the barn is on fire, (and) we’re going down in flames.”

Arizona, whose economy relies on growth, is one of the states hardest hit by the housing bust. There have been signs of recovery since the economy tanked, but economists forecast a painfully slow rebound.

In the meantime, state policymakers have been grappling with a multi-year, multi-billion dollar deficit.

- Luige del Puerto

If any theme emerged from the Aug. 24 primary, it’s that there wasn’t a single overarching theme.

Instead, there was a little bit of everything.

Some tea party candidates and “outsiders” won, which confirms that the anti-establishment sentiment directed at Washington, D.C. extends to Arizona.

But the sentiment’s reach wasn’t very deep – or it didn’t go deep enough.

Indeed, big names and well-oiled political machineries delivered in several races.

John McCain, the clear establishment candidate, trounced J.D. Hayworth in the Republican primary for the US Senate.

But it was also one of the most expensive U.S. Senate races in the country; McCain spent almost $25 million, according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign spending.

Ben Quayle’s familiar name and flush war chest proved unbeatable in the 10-way Republican primary in Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District.

Rep. Adam Driggs, aided by about $57,000 in independent spending, defeated Rich Davis as the two vied for their party’s Senate nomination in Legislative District 11.

“All in all, it was a low turn out and I think voters went with who they know,” said political consultant Chad Willems.

But Willems said if you looked closely at the flavor of each race, it appears that the more conservative candidates won, with some exemptions.

Constantin Querard, the conservative Republican consultant, came to a similar conclusion.

“The tea party values had a great night. Candidates who espoused tea party values had a great night,” Querard said.

Outsider Jesse Kelly defeated the better- known Jonathan Paton, a former legislator, in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

Republican Congressional primaries other than in CD3 were won by the “most tea party candidate,” Querard said, referring to Kelly in CD8, Paul Gosar in CD1 and David Schweikert in CD5.

At the legislative level, Michelle Ugenti, who ran on a tea party platform, won in Legislative District 8′s House primary.

Sen. Frank Antenori, a very conservative lawmaker from Tucson, also easily trounced former lawmaker Marian McClure. The gap was significant between Sen. Sylvia Allen, who won the primary in Legislative District 5, and Rep. Bill Konopnicki, who is considered the more mainstream of the two.

True, Gov. Jan Brewer is the incumbent and a long-time policymaker, and while tea party folks might not like her sales-tax increase, she made many other decisions that appealed to them, such as standing for state rights and signing SB1070, according to Querard.

The business community, which supported pro-business, more mainstream Republicans, had a “very good” night, too, according to the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The chamber said initial results showed that about 80 percent of the candidates it backed won, including Corporation Commission candidates Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns.

For the chamber, that race’s results also indicated that the public has drawn a line on the issue of immigration, rejecting wilder ideas.

“You’ll recall that (Barry) Wong floated a proposal in his campaign that utility providers should deny service to illegal immigrants,” said the chamber’s Allison Bell. “Voters clearly want improved border security, but Wong’s defeat hopefully shows that there is a threshold for what’s considered a serious policy idea and what is simply beyond the pale.”

So what can be drawn from these primary results?

Well, you can’t really paint them with a broad brush.

But that’s Arizona. This is, after all, the state that elected a Democrat for governor and a Republican Legislature a few years back. It’s also the red state that initially rejected a more encompassing ban on same-sex marriage before approving a narrower version two years ago.

It looks like you can still draw a better picture by looking at each race, rather than find a common theme to explain the primary results.