Tuesday, May 1st, 2007...8:52 pm
Thirty Pieces of Silver Doesn’t Go As Far As It Used To
So, what exactly did Linda Lopez and Pete Rios get for their constituents in exchange for their support of the speaker’s budget?
In the end, not much, really.
Part of the deal they made with the Republicans was that their amendments would be revenue neutral. Instead of asking for a reduction in the nearly $48 million in corporate tax cuts, they asked for reductions in spending that render their “increases” nearly useless.
For example, Lopez will no doubt trumpet the fact that she got an additional $8.7 million for teachers salaries. This would be really nice, except that another part of her amendment would result in a $9.2 million dollar cut in support for school facilities and operations. In other words, the teachers will be better paid, but their buildings will be falling apart. Maybe they want school districts to take a few cues from Joe Arpaio and put the classes in tents.
No matter how Lopez may struggle to justify this as an increase in salary, it is still dwarfed by the budget that is going through the Senate. The Senate’s proposal calls for $46 million to go to teacher pay. If Lopez were genuinely interested in increasing teacher pay she’d support the Senate budget. You know, the one that was hammered out by Republicans and Democrats (you know, bipartisan) that actually has a chance of being signed by the Governor.
The even more cynical amendment was the one proposed by Rios, which allocates $12.3 million to increases in state empoyee salary, but pays for it with a $12.3 million cut in employee health insurance. I guess you can say that this isn’t only revenue neutral for the state budget, but for the household budgets of thousands of state employees.
Another one of Lopez’s amendments allocates an additional $1 million to children’s programs. This is nice and all, but she pays for it with a nearly $3 million cut in acute care for people covered by ACCCHS. I can’t even think of anything clever to say that would make this look more ridiculous.
By the way, all in all, their amendments actually resulted in $1.8 million in decreases for health care, education and social services.
9 Comments
May 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
way to cover this Ted.
I hope this will turn into an avalanche of a message to these rebels.
You may have disagreesments with Janet Napolitano but the fact is that we are the MINORITY party and we MUST, we MUST stick together and jumping ship to join Weirs is discpicable.
This the same man that single handidly has held up Predatory Lending legislation for 5 years now because of the fact that Jim is himself, a loan shark.
So apparently these Democrats want to side with the ‘loan shark in chief’ than with Napolitano?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 am
I have heard that this is all about the “rebels” being upset about committee assignments. If that is true, it is remarkably petty on their parts. Does anyone know if there are other issues in play here? It seems like such a risky, no-win and ignorant maneuver by these folks, especially since they have lost the support of some of their “foot soldiers.” I’m just wondering what else may be going on.
Tom brought up the Governor. I think she is quite the dealmaker herself, as she has demonstrated by caving in on tax cuts and vouchers over the past few years. By the way, why were the recommendations of her revenue commission never implemented so that some of the loopholes and cuts that were passed during the Hull and Symington years could be rolled back?
I’m grateful for Janet’s leadership most of the time, but a true blue saint she ain’t. She is also careful not to take too many risks when negotiating with the Republicans, which is why we still have inequities in our tax policies. I get the fact that she may need a supermajority to do some of these things, but let’s not pretend that she hasn’t engaged in some compromises of her own, some of which have not helped the majority of taxpayers in this state.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 am
Rex-
There is compromise, which comes from negotiations and a recognition that the other side has a real case and a real constituency, and then there is what these guys are doing. Please don’t confuse the Governor settling for the half loaf she can get once in a while for these guys.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:30 am
Ted, there is no intent on my part to compare Janet with Lopez and Rios. I recognize the distinction and view their actions as disdainfully as you do. However, the other side has not had a “real case” when Janet gave in to their tax cut and voucher proposals, although they certainly had a “real constituency,” which is why acquiesced to them. Let’s stop pretending that the Governor is not a politician.
Also, please answer my question about whether or not this is all about committee assignments.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:50 am
Heck…the governor is a politician…I’ve never said otherwise. She’d be the first to tell you that, no doubt. What is most amazing here with this deal is that it is bad politics, they seemed to get nothing worthwhile out of it.
Is it all about committee assignments? Seems to be where it started.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:57 am
Rex: IMHO this is mostly about the committee assignments, but it’s ALSO about bruised egos. Lopez and Rios ran against Phil Lopes for leadership and they lost. They didn’t get the committee assignments they wanted, so they turned on their own caucus to cut a deal. Olivia Cajero Bedford her her own personal/political reasons why she wants to weaken Phil. Remember they’re district mates elected in the same year, and some day might run against each other for the state Senate - or so she thinks.
Phil has a tough job. He’s trying to hold together a fractious lot, and he’s being undermined by fellow so-called Democrats.
He has another problem. He’s a genuinely nice guy. Sometimes that gets in the way.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Okay folks, the reasons are irrelvant. The truth is, the democratic caucus is standing together. The few removed individuals are just that…..few and removed. The values of the party of being represented in the Senate budget process. The budget is a bipartisan compromise!!! No one gets everything they want. The goal is to be as inclusive and transparent as possible. Something the House just doesn’t get!! We continue to stand together for the good of the constituents of Arizona, to go through a process to work out the details. Deception and lies only last as long as you are willing to fuel the false information. The gig is up. The House budget is a fake and there is not anyone who is willing to give it any value. The Budget of the State of Arizona is to meet the needs of the people, not the selfish self appointed few. Hang with us….the votes are not in.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
does anyone know who is behind the calls to the Lopez & Rios- guess there are robo calls with a patch through on their vote. Just curios as to who is paying for them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Tedski,
The governor sold you down the river or as Giffords put it, “it’s like she punched me in the gut” when she allowed vouchers to go through. It should be noted that it wasn’t Symington, Meacham or Hull who introduced vouchers to Arizona, Rex, it was Janet. This isn’t about committee assignments or whatever. This is about the fact that your legislative leadership sucks. Say what you want to about the Speaker but he has managed to get two budgets in a row through and keep 31 members of his caucus together on the budget. You guys apparently can’t stick together with the numbers you’ve got.
BTW I love the fact you all are trashing people who have been incredibly hard-working for your party. Linda Lopez and Pete Rios have slaved for your party. They have one independent thought one time and you guys are ready to chuck them over the side. Talk about a short attention span…