Five lobbyists for progressive causes and one self-described political strategist say they are concerned that the projected budget deficit will embolden Republicans who have been looking for reasons to cut social services, carve away educational programs, reduce urban revenue sharing and mandate cutbacks in agency budgets.
They expressed their views to about 60 people at a meeting of the Arizona Advocacy Network on Oct. 18 about what really went on at the last legislative session and what to expect come January.
Tim Schmaltz of Protecting Arizona Families said, “The opposition will surely take this opportunity to play up their claims that government is too big and spends too much.”
Mixing a metaphor, Jennifer Daily, lobbyist for the Arizona Education Association, put a finer point to the discussion about next year’s budget, saying, “There’s a $600 million deficit. Well, there’s been $600 million in tax cuts the past two years. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to connect those dots.”
She said that “all by itself,” the suspension of the state equalization property tax for three years will cost the general fund almost $700 million.
John Loredo, former House minority leader, characterized the push for tax cuts as part of an overall political strategy to reduce the size of government.
“It’s called building in a structural deficit,” he said. 
All agreed that borrowing for new school construction should be part of any budget fix.
Praise for GOP moderates
The lobbyists praised Sen. Carolyn Allen, R-8; Sen. Tom O’Halleran, R-1; Rep. Jennifer Burns, R-25, and Rep. Pete Hershberger, R-26, reserving special kudos for the two senators.
“Often, a lawmaker wants something in return for their vote,” said Daily, “and that is especially so if they are asked to vote against the majority of their party. But Allen and O’Halleran not only hung tough on environmental, social and education issues, they didn’t demand anything as a quid pro quo. They just said: ‘Don’t worry about me. I’m with you on this.’”
Eric Ehst, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, said Rep. Michele Reagan, R-8, deserves a lot of credit for the passage of H2690 (Chapter 277: clean elections; amendments).
“She doesn’t particularly like the law and doesn’t use it but, if it was going to happen, she wanted it to be fair to everyone,” he said.
Ehst said there was one provision brought to the table that would have vastly increased the amount of contributions an individual could make during one election cycle. He said he urged people to refer to it as the “Jack Abramoff provision,” and support for it evaporated in favor of a far more modest increase.
Same bad bills
Sandy Bahr, lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said one of the organization’s successes last session was the veto of S1119 (water; overlapping area providers), sponsored by Sen. Chuck Gray, R-19. It passed the Senate 16-12 and the House 32-23, but was vetoed by Gov. Janet Napolitano on May 1.
Bahr said she has heard the same bill will be back next year.
“I wonder what they think will happen this time — that the governor will forget about her veto?” Bahr asked rhetorically. “Well, I guess the lobbyists need billable hours.”
Bahr said that she demanded language in H2300 (Chapter 252; water district; upper San Pedro) protecting the river’s base flows, otherwise she would urge a veto.
“Jennifer Burns sighed and said it would be a tough sell for the cities in the area because of the potential negative impact on economic development, but, to her credit, she told them it was a deal-breaker, and they bought off on it. The guaranteed flow provision stayed in, the bill passed and the governor signed it.”
Mike Vespoli, legislative director for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 9, recounted that the success of the minimum wage proposition last year resulted in labor having a major voice in workers’ comp legislation this year.
“There was considerable pushback on the issue of annual indexing in workers’ comp legislation [H2195: workers’ compensation amounts & death benefit]. Representatives of the business community came to us and wanted to negotiate, which we did. But at a certain point we just said no more and indicated we would go to the ballot. We had done all the groundwork so they knew we were serious.
“In the end, they took the deal because they were more concerned with what we might have gone after in an initiative than what we agreed to in the bill,” Vespoli said.
Democrat revolt
Loredo confirmed what most observers had already suspected on the Democrat revolt in the House — that four Democrat renegades, “absolutely” made a deal with Speaker Jim Weiers to trade better committee assignments for votes on the GOP budget: “votes in committee and votes on the floor.” The four were Reps. Olivia Cajero Bedford, Martha Garcia, Linda Lopez and Pete Rios.
Loredo theorized the rebels thought there would be no political fallout from the maneuver. “They must have thought nobody really pays attention to what goes on down there,” he said, “but when their offices were deluged with phone calls and e-mails from constituents, they had to come back to (House Minority Leader Phil) Lopes with their tails between their legs.”
Schmaltz seconded Loredo’s account, saying this was the first year he had ever gotten chastised by a Democrat — one of the renegades who were upset by the controversy that developed. Schmaltz said that was proof to him the strategy of applying political heat from constituents was working.
The future
Daily said one of the most encouraging things about last year was that many freshmen and some sophomore lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, began meeting informally “off campus” for lunch to discuss issues. She said the purpose of the meetings was to find common ground where they could work together.