Committee Spotlight: Chairman Darrell Issa, House Oversight Committee

On May 9, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee convened a hearing examining employee misconduct at the EPA, and allegations that the agency’s Office of Homeland Security is actively obstructing its Office of Inspector General from conducting investigations.  In this week’s Committee Spotlight, Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) provides a recap of the hearing, plus key clips of witness testimony.

Read the Hearing in its entirety.

View the original article here

House Republicans are doing work – and encourage Senate Dems to do the same

In this week’s Republican address, the authors of more than a dozen House-passed jobs bills call on President Obama and Senate Democrats to act and match the House’s focus on the economy.

Each of these bills are aimed at creating jobs, strengthening the American economy, and easing the squeeze for hard-working Americans. These are only a few of the 232 bills stuck in the Senate, and as Rep. John Kline (R-MN) said, “More are in the works.”

For House Republicans, the focus remains on building a stronger economy and a better America. “It’s time for President Obama and Senate democrats to step up and make that their priority, too,” said Kline.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI): H.R. 890 passed to “Protect reforms that help thousands of welfare recipients find jobs and lift their families out of poverty.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC): H.R. 803, helps “More American workers gain the skills and education necessary to compete for in demand jobs.”

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE): H.R. 3 approves the building of The Keystone XL Pipeline, and “supports more than 42,000 direct and indirect jobs.”

Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL): H.R. 1406 will “Allow private sectors to take advantage of the comp-time benefits that public employees enjoy.”

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV): H.R. 761 targets “The development of strategic and critical minerals used to support American and manufacturing jobs.”

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX): H.R. 2481 aimed at “Providing our service members with the tools that will help them find good jobs when they return home.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO): H.R. 1965 will “Make it easier to develop resources that will lower energy costs and reduce dependency on foreign oil.”

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA): H.R. 3309 will “Promote innovation and job creation by helping businesses defend themselves from abusive patent litigation.”

Rep. George Holding (R-NC): H.R. 2804 passed to “Reign in red tape and increase transparency of new regulations, so small businesses can better plan ahead.”

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL): H.R. 3474 will “Incentivise small businesses to hire more of our veterans.”

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): H.R. 2824 passed to “Fight back against the administration’s war on coal that’s destroying jobs and causing electricity prices to skyrocket.”

Rep. Todd Young (R-IN): H.R. 2575 will “Restore working hours and wages that millions of part-time employees lost because of Obamacare.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX): The recently passed H.R. 4438 will “Permanently extend research and development tax credit, so we can keep good ideas and good jobs right here at home.”

Rep. John Kline (R-MN): Also recently passed, H.R. 10 intends to “Strengthen charter schools and encourage more choice and opportunity through our education system.”

View the original article here

House Republicans – helping small businesses succeed

This week, House Republicans celebrated small businesses and the hardworking Americans who make these economic engines run across the country. The contributions small business employees make to the American economy are incredible – almost 60 million jobs - and over 25 million firms. However, the current status of our American economy does not reciprocate in benefits to these hard-working Americans.

Small business job growth is strangled by unnecessary regulation, complex and increasing taxes, and high energy prices. Obamacare is increasing health care costs and preventing companies from creating new jobs.  House Republicans have introduced, and passed, multiple bills that will make it easier for small businesses in America to grow and expand.

Problem: Small businesses bear a regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36% higher than the cost of regulatory compliance for large business.
Solution: House Republicans have passed H.R. 2804, which requires agencies to write regulations with small businesses in mind, imposing the least cost necessary and communicating the status and cost of new regulations.

Problem: The Obama administration is very likely generating the most regulations in history, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually.
Solution: H.R. 367, passed by House Republicans in August 2013, requires regulations with more than a $100 million impact on the economy to be approved by Congress before taking affect – checking and balancing the power of the President.

Problem: The Small Business Administration (SBA) reports that the average tax compliance cost per employee for small businesses is almost three times the per employee cost for the average large firm.
Solution: Small businesses create 16.5 times more patents than large firms. House Republicans recognize and appreciate this innovation, and have passed bills like H.R. 4438, which provide incentives for the research that small businesses excel in to create more jobs.

Problem: The median commercial sector industry has a small business energy cost per sales ratio that is 2.7 times greater than that of larger businesses, which hinders their ability to compete during times of elevated energy prices, according to the SBA Office of Advocacy.
Solution: The Keystone XL Pipeline will not only create new jobs, but will reduce energy prices for all Americans, providing the type of relief that small businesses need to succeed. House Republicans have voiced their support for the project, yet continue to wait for the President and Senate to act.

Problem: A recent National Small Business Association health care survey shows an overwhelming majority of small companies have suffered health insurance cost increases. Ninety-one percent of small businesses reported increases in their health care premiums. One in four of these increases exceed 20%.
Solution: House Republicans have passed multiple bills to protect Americans from the negative impacts of Obamacare. We remained focused on implementing patient-centered, high-quality, and low-cost options for health care.

In order for small businesses to grow, reforms must be made in our economy and government. The House Republican plan #4Jobs encompasses working solutions for regulation, taxes, health care and more. While dozens of our bills remain stuck in the senate, House Republicans remain advocates for small business workers - doing all we can to help build an America that works for small businesses, as hard as they work for America.

View the original article here

House Republicans, Obama seek end to budget stalemate

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Negotiations to end the government shutdown and avert default continued Friday as Senate Republicans huddled with President Barack Obama privately to discuss a pathway out of the impasse.

POLL: MOST FAULT REPUBLICANS FOR SHUTDOWN

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed more people blaming Republicans than President Barack Obama for the shutdown, 53percent to 31percent. Just 24percent viewed the Republican Party positively, compared with 39 percent with positive views of the Democratic Party.

"The question is: Can you get something in the next 72 hours? The president seems committed to being engaged in it, and he hadn't been up to this point, so I'm optimistic," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., after the meeting.

House and Senate Republicans appear to be pursuing different negotiations with the White House, and it is unclear whether either proposal can win over Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is leading congressional Democrats in the negotiations.

Democrats have resisted GOP efforts, led by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to engage in budget talks until the government is reopened and the debt ceiling is increased before the Oct.17 deadline.

Day 11

The shutdown, in its 11th day Friday, began when Republicans demanded a delay or defunding of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for their votes to keep the government running.

The funding discussion has now snowballed to include a plan to increase the U.S. borrowing limit so the nation can continue to pay its bills on time. Republicans have since moved on from focusing solely on the health care law to seeking broader concessions on fiscal issues.

Congress will continue to work through the weekend. House Republicans will huddle Saturday morning and the Senate is scheduled to vote on a key procedural hurdle to move ahead with a 15-month increase in the debt ceiling with no conditions attached.

House Republicans have offered a short-term path to resolve the shutdown and avert default in order to reach a broader budget deal, while Senate Republicans appear to be mulling longer-term solutions in order to reach an agreement.

Stopgap measure

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is working with senators in both parties on a budget framework that includes a six-month stopgap funding bill and suspends the debt ceiling through January. The extensions would give Congress breathing room to reach a broader budget agreement.

"I believe that still gives us plenty of leverage to work out a long-term fiscal plan, but it removes the threat of an immediate default," Collins said Friday.

Multiple Senate Republicans said the conversation with the president did not include the competing House proposal that would increase the debt ceiling for six weeks.

Republicans have also proposed a short-term stopgap spending bill to reopen the government after Obama rejected their proposal for only a debt ceiling increase.

Senate Republicans seem eager to resolve the impasse. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., cited a "devastating" NBC/WSJ polled released Thursday that showed the Republican Party's favorability at an all-time low. "I know that they're reading the polls," McCain said of House Republicans.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

House plan frustrates 'dreamers'

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Republican leaders of a key House panel said Tuesday they are willing to offer a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children but cannot do the same for their parents who knowingly broke the law.

Laurie Roberts: "Dreamers'" opposition to

the House GOP citizenship proposal is a bold stand, but understandable given that they are also sons and daughters. Unfortunately, it's also something they may regret. B1

That position is opposed by the young immigrants the House leaders are trying to help, creating a dilemma for Republican lawmakers as they try to show compassion for the most sympathetic group of undocumented immigrants while remaining true to their party's tough stance against illegal immigration.

The House is trying to craft its own immigration legislation piece by piece after the Senate last month approved a sweeping overhaul that provides a pathway to citizenship for most of the nation's 11million undocumented immigrants.

Immigrants brought here illegally as children "deserve to be treated from a different perspective" than immigrants who knowingly broke the law by crossing the border illegally or overstaying their visas, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. An estimated 2million undocumented immigrants were brought into the United States as children.

"They had no input into their parents' decision to bring the family to the U.S. illegally," Goodlatte said at a hearing of the panel's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. "And many of them know no other home than the United States, having grown up as Americans since they were toddlers in some instances. They surely don't share the culpability of their parents."

Goodlatte is working with Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on a bill tentatively called the "Kids Act" that would offer a pathway to citizenship for the young immigrants. But he and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the immigration subcommittee, said they don't believe the parents of those children should be able to become citizens.

"Parents bringing their young children to the U.S. illegally is not something we want to encourage," Goodlatte said. "Not only because it would lead to continued illegal immigration, but also because illegally crossing the border is dangerous. We have all seen the pictures or even video of children who are dehydrated and lethargic from an arduous trek across the Arizona desert with their parents or with smugglers paid by their parents."

Gowdy said he wants to make it clear that advocates who insist on a pathway to citizenship for all 11million undocumented immigrants living in the United States "will only end up hurting the most vulnerable."

Goodlatte indicated that he might be willing to consider giving some kind of legal status to the parents of young immigrants that stops short of citizenship.

But two of the young immigrants that Goodlatte and Gowdy are seeking to aid testified that they would oppose any legislation that would help them while deporting their parents or barring their parents from ever earning citizenship.

"When members of Congress tell me that I deserve an opportunity to earn citizenship and my mother does not, I tell them that if anyone deserves that opportunity to earn citizenship, it is my mother, Rosalinda," said Rosa Velazquez, a 30-year-old Arkansas resident and graduate student who was brought to this country illegally when she was 5 years old. "If Congress were to adopt an incomplete solution that would provide a path to earned citizenship for (young immigrants) like me, but something less for our parents, it would be like saying that I can now be one of you, but my parents can never be. Such a solution would tell (us) that our hardworking parents are good enough to pick your crops, babysit your children, landscape your yard, and at the same time never treated as equal members of this society."

Pamela Rivera, who was born in California to undocumented immigrant parents, was asked by Goodlatte about how her mother would feel about getting legal status to stay in the United States but not getting citizenship. Rivera's mother was deported to Colombia six years ago after being caught during a minor traffic violation.

"She wants to be a part of this country," Rivera said. "She still thinks of herself as an American. I think my mother would want a shot at becoming a citizen."

A leader of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention told the House panel that he would like Congress to give immediate protection from deportation to young immigrants brought here as children. About a quarter of them have already applied for protection from deportation under an Obama administration program started a year ago that allows them to stay in the country and work legally for at least two years.

"I think you must also consider the parents of these young people," said Barrett Duke, a vice president of the convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "They are likely still their principal supporters, especially of those who pursue an education track. I do not think that you can confer a legal status on their parents through this legislation. That should be part of the broader immigration reform that must be done."

The issue of what to do about the estimated 9million undocumented immigrants who came to the United States illegally as adults is an especially difficult one for House leaders, who are faced with a divided GOP caucus. Conservatives generally see any kind of legal status for undocumented immigrants as amnesty for law breakers. Other Republicans, such as Goodlatte, would be willing to consider some sort of legal status that stops short of citizenship.

National Republican leaders and senators such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the Republican Party must pass immigration reform to have any hope of appealing to Latino voters in the future. Latinos voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats in the 2012 elections.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the most vocal opponents of the Senate immigration bill, said at Tuesday's hearing that he is skeptical of any citizenship bill, even one that would apply only to those brought here illegally as children. King said such a bill could be "a backdoor route to amnesty" for all undocumented immigrants.

He said the attitude of some House leaders is that, "We'll just do this little sliver here (for immigrant children) because this tugs at our heartstrings." But that could lead to special consideration for their parents and other family members, King said.

"You've sacrificed the rule of law on the altar of political expediency," he said.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., an immigration-reform leader, said Tuesday's debate shows just how far House Republicans have come after years of rejecting efforts to legalize young immigrants brought here as children.

"I am not here to slam you," Gutierrez told Republicans. "I am here to say thank you. I am here to say welcome aboard. Those of us who have sat at this table and felt lonely are glad you are stepping up again to talk this over with us. If the Republican majority is starting with the young people we call 'dreamers' because that is as far as you are willing to go in terms of legal status for undocumented immigrants, I say thank you for coming this far, because taking a step in the right direction is the first step in any good-faith negotiation. It is the first step that says a compromise may be within reach. It is a place we can start."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

House Majority Leader’s Quest to Soften G.O.P.’s Image Hits a Wall Within

WASHINGTON — Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, has been trying for months to remake the image of the Republican Party, from one of uncompromising conservatism to something kinder and gentler.

It isn’t working so well.

On Wednesday, Republican leaders abruptly shelved one of the centerpieces of Mr. Cantor’s “Making Life Work” agenda — a bill to extend insurance coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions — in the face of a conservative revolt. Last month, legislation to streamline worker retraining programs barely squeaked through. In May, Republican leaders will try again with legislation, pitched as family-friendly, to allow employers to offer comp time or “flex time” instead of overtime. But it has little prospect for Senate passage.

So it has gone. Items that Mr. Cantor had hoped would change the Republican Party’s look, if not its priorities, have been ignored, have been greeted with yawns or have only worsened Republican divisions.

“We need to look at these issues through a more human lens and realize government has a role here, especially on some of these pocketbook issues,” said Representative Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, who expressed frustration with the lock-step opposition of the House’s fiercest conservatives. “Have we been successful? No. We’re still trying to find our way.”

The debacle on Wednesday was the worst moment yet. The Helping Sick Americans Now Act sounded like solid middle ground — a measure to actually expand the part of President Obama’s health care law that created a federal “high-risk pool” in which people with pre-existing conditions could band together to buy subsidized insurance coverage. The provision was to be paid for by siphoning money from another part of Mr. Obama’s health care law, the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

But these days, those who linger in the middle of the road end up flattened. The White House issued a stern veto threat to keep the money in the fund, which chased away Democratic votes from the Helping Sick Americans Now Act. The Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee, warned that Republicans who voted in favor of the act would have their scorecards marked down for supporting part of the health care law. L. Brent Bozell III, a conservative activist, labeled the bill “Cantorcare” — and not as a compliment.

“We often say we don’t need this Democrat big-government program, we need this Republican big-government program,” said Representative Trey Radel, Republican of Florida. “It’s time to say enough is enough.”

In the end, the votes were not there — not even close, House vote counters conceded.

“We absolutely intend to bring this legislation back up,” said Doug Heye, a spokesman for Mr. Cantor.

When Mr. Cantor delivered a “Making Life Work” speech at the American Enterprise Institute in February, his message to his party was urgent and well received. The party, he said, needs to get beyond its single-minded, green-eyeshaded message of fiscal austerity and look to the problems of ordinary struggling Americans. Education, work-force training, health care and medical research have to augment the central issue of fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, he said.

“It was meaningful and good advice to all of us,” said Representative Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania. “I wish more of our members would have heeded it.”

The decision to call off the vote on the health care bill on Wednesday — a rare occurrence in the House — set off a round of recriminations. Some Republicans complained that Mr. Cantor had not vetted his proposals before presenting them publicly as the party’s salvation, then forcing them to the House floor. Others said a large core of the House Republican conference had simply proved unwilling to move beyond the austerity message.

The Republicans’ embrace of such austerity was evident as the House Ways and Means Committee was drafting a bill on Wednesday to ensure that the federal government’s creditors would be the first paid with incoming tax revenues, should Congress refuse this summer to raise the government’s borrowing limit.

Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Final Round Set for Parties in South Carolina House Race

María Belén Chapur’s appearance was a surprise, especially to leaders in the national Republican Party. It might not have been the most strategic move in Mr. Sanford’s attempt at a political comeback. Still, it was how Mr. Sanford wanted it.

Whether national Republican leaders will decide that the former governor is putting the seat in jeopardy and decide to lend more support is only one question in a race that has already been filled with political and personal drama. After defeating 15 other candidates in a primary race and winning a runoff on Tuesday, Mr. Sanford faces Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Democrat with enough celebrity appeal and financial backing to change what could have been an easy victory in the special election on May 7 into a real battle.

“Everybody is really concerned because she’s not a bad-looking lady, she is a good speaker and she’s got some money,” said Jerry Hallman, chairman of the Beaufort County Republican Party. “In politics, those things are important.”

The seat became vacant after Senator Jim DeMint announced in December that he was stepping down to take over the Heritage Foundation. Gov. Nikki R. Haley appointed Representative Tim Scott to replace him, opening up the Congressional seat that Mr. Sanford held before he became governor.

Gender, fidelity and experience are already shaping up as themes in the district, which includes Charleston, Hilton Head and some Low Country farmland. Mr. Sanford began his campaign as a kind of apology tour, explaining he had learned much about humility after leaving the governor’s office in 2011, having lied about a trip to Argentina to visit Ms. Chapur. Mr. Sanford said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. Although he finished his term, he faced ethics fines, censure by his party and divorce from his wife of 21 years, Jenny.

Now, he has gone on the offensive, portraying himself as a seasoned fiscal hawk in a race against a political neophyte whose most notable credential is her celebrity family. Ms. Colbert Busch’s younger brother is the comedian Stephen Colbert, who has been active in her campaign.

Already the national Republican Party, though not committing to using heavy artillery in the race, is painting Ms. Colbert Busch as too liberal for a district that voted for Mitt Romney in the presidential primary. (Newt Gingrich won the state over all.)

“So far, Elizabeth Colbert Busch has yet to answer any real questions about why she supports President Obama’s failed policies,” said Katie Prill, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “She might be the gem of the Beltway and Hollywood liberals, but South Carolinians are going to be sorely disappointed the more they learn about her.”

Ms. Colbert Busch is leaning on her years as a maritime executive and at Clemson University, where she is leading an effort to develop the state’s wind power industry. She is also relying on several women in Congress, among them Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, the New York Democrat, who began using Twitter to seek donations to the campaign.

Democratic leaders realize the race must be run without error, with special attention paid to women and moderate Republicans who remember Mr. Sanford’s rocky relationship with the Legislature when he was in office and, of course, his affair.

But the national organization probably won’t make a move until the other side does.

“This is a Republican seat in a Republican district, so we’ll wait and see what the Republicans do,” said Jesse Ferguson of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Hesaid national Republican organization might not be eager to get involved.

“Having Mark Sanford as the face of the party is probably not the best thing for a party trying to rehabilitate itself with women voters,” he said.

View the original article here

Medicaid expansion debated in House

The first public airing of Gov. Jan Brewer's proposal to expand Medicaid was a four-hour, wide-ranging, sometimes- vitriolic debate Wednesday that offered a preview into how nasty this year's biggest legislative battle could become.

The informational hearing before the House Appropriations Committee didn't yield new information or formal action, but dozens of people testified about the perceived benefits and evils of expanding the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program, under the federal health-care overhaul.

An overflow crowd jammed the hearing room and another room down the hall, lawmakers talked over each other and exchanged snide remarks, and a Republican Party official likened the governor to Judas.

Patients, health-care professionals, business owners and people who work with the poor and the mentally ill said broadening eligibility for Medicaid and uncapping a program that insures childless adults would be a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of Arizonans, a huge relief to hospitals across the state treating a growing number of uninsured and ultimately bring savings for taxpayers.

But opponents of expansion, including committee Chairman John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, and GOP officials, said adding 400,000 people to the state-federal program for the poor and disabled, taxing hospitals to help pay for it and accepting billions in new federal funding would only add to the country's dangerously high debt without solving the problem of skyrocketing health-care costs.

The debate among committee members frequently devolved into partisan bickering, but people who waited hours to testify were testament to the issue's significance.

"AHCCCS has been my lifeline, and it is the reason I can see all of you right now," said Chantal Duquette, 25, an Arizona State University senior who has an autoimmune disorder that could blind her without proper treatment. "By supporting AHCCCS, we are contributing to the future of Arizona."

Duquette's health coverage will end Dec. 31, along with an estimated 50,000 other Arizonans insured under a voter-approved program for childless adults that legislators capped to help balance the budget in 2011 and which is due to expire. Under Medicaid expansion, those earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or just under $15,000 a year, would be eligible for AHCCCS.

The governor's plan is backed by a coalition led by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and the health-care industry, but her harshest critics are conservative Republicans, particularly precinct committeemen.

GOP groups in three counties and numerous legislative districts have passed resolutions calling for lawmakers to reject expansion, and testimony from Maricopa County GOP Chairman A.J. LaFaro showed how ugly the issue has become.

"Jesus had Judas. Republicans have Governor Brewer," LaFaro said before walking away from the podium.

Though there were some groans in the audience, committee members did not rebuke him. Brewer chief of staff Scott Smith, however, had words with LaFaro outside the House, and House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, sent a tweet calling for LaFaro to apologize and resign.

"Obviously, his statement was irrational and unhinged," Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said. "But if that's who opponents of the governor's plan want to have as their spokesperson, I say, 'Fantastic.'"

Brewer's proposal would bring in nearly $1.6 billion in additional federal funding in 2015, the first full year of expansion, and pay for the state's share with an assessment on hospitals. The so-called bed tax is expected to raise $256 million in 2015 by pulling in additional federal matching funds.

In addition to objections over federal debt and government-run health care, many Republican lawmakers believe the hospital tax should be subject to a two-thirds majority under a 1992 ballot measure, Proposition 108, designed to make it more difficult for the Legislature to raise taxes and fees. The GOP governor has enough votes to get a simple majority in the Senate, and likely in the House, but a supermajority would be far more difficult to muster.

"I think we need to take Prop. 108 very seriously," said Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, and be prepared for the state to be sued if the measure passes without a two-thirds majority.

Legislators also argued over whether there was another option available: asking federal health officials to continue the childless-adult program and the 66 percent funding match that comes with it. If Arizona agreed to expand Medicaid, federal funds would pay for 85 percent to 100 percent of the cost.

Kavanagh said growing the program is not the way to get hold of health-care costs.

"When people have insurance, they use it," Kavanagh said. "There is going to be a tsunami of new people seeking medical treatment."

Dozens testified that insuring more Arizonans would save the state money by preventing unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency-room visits.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk said she has seen more people with mental illness wind up in jail as Arizona has reduced funding for AHCCCS and mental-health treatment.

"Incarceration is an expensive way to provide mental-health care," Polk said. "And, of course, it's not the appropriate or humane way to treat those with mental illness."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

House awaits Senate action

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where comprehensive immigration reform went to die in 2006, is the wild card in this year's immigration-reform debate.

House leaders are taking a wait-and-see approach as the Senate begins crafting a bipartisan immigration-reform bill, and while advocates are optimistic about its chances, many House conservatives are sure to continue to oppose any polices that might be construed as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has signaled a willingness to tackle the issue this year in a bipartisan way, but he might have trouble getting a majority of his fellow Republicans to go along with him.

A decision to collaborate with Democrats on such a hot-button issue as immigration could put his leadership position in jeopardy.

Politically, the anti-amnesty sentiment continues to simmer with the grass-roots "tea party" activists who are often influential in GOP primaries.

And to some House Republicans, the long-term future electoral viability of the Republican Party may be a secondary priority to their avoiding a primary foe next year.

So far, Boehner has not endorsed or rejected the bipartisan framework that was announced last Monday by a group of four Democratic senators and four Republican senators.

Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Arizona Republicans, are among the so-called "Gang of Eight" who crafted the plan.

"Boehner is going to play this close to his chest, see what happens in the Senate and not commit too early," said David Cort, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. "Why waste political capital now when he doesn't have to? He can let the Senate go first."

Flake, who was sworn in as Arizona's newest senator last month after six terms in the House, understands the dilemma his former colleagues face.

"There are some who aren't excited about taking up this thing," said Flake, who already is trying to sell the Senate plan to House Republicans. "Anybody with elections every two years worries more about that. But I think everybody is anxious to see this in the rear-view mirror. So that's some motivation there."

Less risk in Senate

While there is no guarantee the Senate will ultimately pass a comprehensive bill, senators generally face fewer political risks in taking on divisive issues than House members do, analysts said.

In representing an entire state, senators tend to be accountable to a more politically diverse group of constituents and can take a more moderate view, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, immigration-law expert and professor of law at Cornell University.

They also have the relative luxury of having to face voters every six years rather than every two years as House members do.

That makes it a bit easier for them to look at issues from a longer-term perspective, Yale-Loehr said.

"Having to face re-election every two years can make a member of the House more cautious thinking about how this might affect his or her primary chances," he said. "Republicans have to worry about a primary-election challenge from a 'tea party' or other conservative candidate."

In 2006, the then-GOP-run Senate passed a comprehensive immigration-reform bill co-authored by McCain and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., but it went nowhere in the Republican-controlled House, which instead passed its own tough enforcement bill that also ultimately failed.

Later that year, Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate in a Democratic wave election. Republicans regained control of the House in the 2010 election.

On Wednesday, Politico reported that a group of eight House members -- four Democrats, four Republicans -- are quietly working on their own immigration-reform plan to offer to House leaders for consideration. None is from Arizona.

Flake acknowledged that some of his former GOP House colleagues who represent Republican-dominated districts could attract a primary foe by embracing comprehensive immigration reform.

However, even Republicans who come from areas with few Hispanic voters have an interest in solving the problem, he said.

"I hope that we have enough who say, 'I'll risk it in my primary, but, boy, for the good of my party, we need to broaden the base,'" Flake said.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to be more open-minded toward immigration reform than his predecessor, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who has already condemned the Senate blueprint as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

Likewise, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the panel's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, is "a smart guy who approaches this thing in a very deliberative fashion," Flake said.

"With the people in place now, from Goodlatte to Gowdy to others, we are in a better position than we were before," Flake said.

Hopeful on consensus

While Arizona's two senators are in a leading role on reform, many of its House members are largely silent, though some are hopeful.

Rep. David Schweikert, a Republican who represents the northeast Valley, praised the Senate's efforts in a written statement to The Arizona Republic on Wednesday, revealing support for some principles of reform.

Like most Republicans, he argued enhanced border security is a must.

But he also said an immigration overhaul to deal with the millions of people living in the country illegally is "well overdue."

He cautioned that such a plan should not favor illegal immigrants over those who have been waiting in line to come legally to the United States.

"I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a fair and equitable solution that addresses the very real problems that exist in our system of immigration and border security," he said.

Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat from Tucson, said he expects a bloc of Republicans to oppose reform but the group may not be large enough to hold up a bill.

"Coming out of the election, Republicans are reflecting across the board on what they need to do on a number of issues, where they stand and how they're perceived, and one of those issues is fixing the broken immigration system," Barber said.

He pointed to "major breaks" within the Republican caucus in recent weeks that aided passage of bills on the "fiscal cliff," Hurricane Sandy relief and the federal-debt ceiling.

"I really believe that can and will happen on immigration," he said.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat who represents a swing district in northern Arizona, also is hopeful.

"I'm optimistic both parties can agree on some of these principles … and move past the stalemate that's been in place so long," Kirkpatrick said.

Freshman Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said she is grateful that Arizona's two senators are among those who are leading the reform effort.

"It's great for our state and it's great for the prospect of getting reform done," she said.

The Latino factor

The GOP-led House is more likely to pass comprehensive reform if it passes overwhelmingly in the Democratic-led Senate with strong support from Republican senators, Yale-Loehr said.

"But if it passes by just a few votes, I think that will make it harder to get something similar through the House," he said.

If the Senate sends over a strong bipartisan bill, Boehner most likely will call the House GOP caucus together and try to convince them that passage is key to the Republican Party's political future and its ability to attract the growing number of Latino voters, Cort said.

President Barack Obama won more than 70 percent of Latino voters in his re-election bid. Latino voters also overwhelmingly favored Democratic congressional candidates.

"I think Boehner will tell his GOP caucus that Republicans cannot afford to be blamed for the bill going down," Cort said. "He will tell them not to give the Democrats a weapon to use against them at the polls."

Jennifer Gordon, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, said she believes the message will resonate with a growing number of House Republicans.

"Supporting reform may not be in the personal interests of some representatives, but it's unquestionably in the interests of the Republican Party as a whole," Gordon said. "The last election was a powerful message to the Republican Party. That's what makes me reluctant to make the standard prediction of it (reform) failing in the House."

Flake said he believes Boehner would be willing to move forward with an immigration bill even if a majority of House Republicans oppose it.

"He's done that a couple of times recently (passed bills largely with Democratic votes), and I think he will do it again," Flake said. "The desire to get immigration behind us extends pretty far and pretty deep, even with people who don't necessarily agree so much with the principles or the direction of it."

Boehner also could be helped by Republican political-action committees such as the Hispanic Leadership Network, which sent e-mails to House Republicans last week urging them to avoid inflammatory rhetoric in the coming debate that could alienate Latino voters.

The group, the Hispanic outreach arm of the American Action Network, cautioned GOP members against referring to immigrants as "illegals" or "aliens" or denouncing the Senate plan as "amnesty."

Meanwhile, Arizona's House members are reviving their bipartisan meetings in the new Congress, a move that the senior member of the delegation,Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor, hopes can help bring consensus on immigration and other issues.

The first outing was an evening social last month hosted by Republican Rep. Trent Franks.

Pastor plans to sponsor monthly delegation breakfasts beginning Feb. 14, and other members are expected to host events as well.

"They have their own interests, they have their own politics, they have districts they represent," Pastor said of his colleagues. "For me, it's holding conversations in a private manner to talk about (immigration reform) and try -- as legislation is developed and passed -- to speak with them and encourage and answer questions."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Ryan Returns to Spotlight at House Republican Retreat

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — When House Republicans arrived from the nation’s capital in the colonial capital this week, they were greeted by a brigade in traditional garb. Men in tricornered hats twittered away (on the fife), and three founding fathers — Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Washington — stopped by to give speeches.

Over two and a half days that ended Friday, Republicans holed up at the stately Kingsmill Resort for their annual retreat tried to game out the year. The resort bills itself as a “golf, spa and luxury hotel,” but few of the members had much time for pleasure; as the majority in the House staring down a Democratic-led Senate and Democratic White House, there was work to be done. Even Speaker John A. Boehner, an obsessive golfer, was unable to slip away for a round. (The chilly damp weather, with a light dusting of snow Thursday evening, didn’t help).

Though the news media were not allowed to attend the official retreat, and were sequestered in a restaurant clubhouse on the property (more on that later), here’s a look at what went on:

And He’s Back

When Representative Paul D. Ryan’s vice-presidential bid ended in November, he returned to Congress but receded into the background, giving few interviews and, save for a high-profile vote in favor of the “fiscal cliff” deal, keeping his head down. But for those wondering about Mr. Ryan’s next act, the answer came into relief Thursday, when he addressed journalists as something of the official spokesman for his conference.

“We think the worst thing for the economy, for this Congress and this administration would be to do nothing to get our debt and deficits under control,” Mr. Ryan said. “We know we have a debt crisis coming. This is not an ‘if’ question, it’s a ‘when’ question.”

There had been some suggestion that Mr. Ryan might be considering a presidential bid in 2016 and despite his perch as Budget Committee chairman, was going to pull a rope-a-dope, allowing the House leadership to shoulder the responsibility on coming fiscal fights. But he took a front-and-center role at the retreat, both in public and behind the scenes.

Mr. Ryan was one of only two legislators officially trotted out before the gathered reporters to speak on the record, and he was the one who gave his fellow members a dose of bitter medicine, warning, “We also have to recognize the realities of the divided government that we have.”

He was also the first to publicly mention that his conference was open to the idea of a short-term extension of the debt limit, which ultimately became the biggest news out of the retreat.

If Williamsburg marked the premiere of the 113th Congressional House Republicans, Mr. Ryan apparently intends to take a starring role.

Debt Limit, Debt Limit

The Republican retreat is meant to be an opportunity for members to discuss the coming year. But the most important strategic decision, it seemed, involved only the first 90 days.

So what does the first quarter of 2013 hold? A possible short-term extension of the debt ceiling, which emerged as a proposal on which nearly the entire conference was able to come to rare consensus. But other than the fiscal wrangling to come, Republicans still trying to get their bearings after the November elections did not seem to delve too deeply into the other big issues they are certain to confront.

When Representative John C. Fleming of Louisiana wandered over to the clubhouse to chat with reporters Thursday afternoon, he said that gun control and immigration — two of three major issues on the White House’s plate — had not even come up.

Another participant later clarified that gun control had been discussed, albeit briefly. The verdict: “In terms of legislation, the Senate will almost certainly act first,” the official said.

Full Cry

Though House Republicans have struggled to marshal the majority of their majority on two big-ticket votes, the bare 218 required to pass legislation is no longer sufficient to satisfy Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority whip.

He wants the “full cry.”

The term “whip,” Mr. McCarthy explained, derives from a fox hunting expression. A “full cry,” he added, is the call made when the dog catches the scent of the fox.

When a “full cry” comes, all of the other dogs — in the case of this metaphor, presumably, the House Republicans — fall into line, pursuing the prey with unified vigor. And this “full cry” is exactly what Mr. McCarthy hopes for from his whip team and conference.

On the first night of the retreat, he even presented members of his whip team with sleek new black jackets — with the “full cry” slogan emblazoned on the sleeve in white letters.

To the Stocks

While the House Republicans were treated to colonial festivities (and breakout session after breakout session), the news media were banished to the stocks, confined to a single room in the clubhouse. When several reporters tried to go to an adjoining room to sit by the fire, they were promptly scolded and told they could leave only to eat or use the bathroom.

Meanwhile, a lectern — with five American flags — had been set up for the possibility of televised news conferences, but on Friday morning, the official word came: There would be no briefings, the House leadership would not be holding a news conference after all. At that point, the assembled reporters began beating a retreat of their own — back to the nation’s capital for the presidential inauguration.

View the original article here

In Reversal, House G.O.P. Agrees to Lift Debt Limit

The new proposal, which came out of closed-door party negotiations at a retreat in Williamsburg, Va., seemed to significantly reduce the threat of a default by the federal government in coming weeks. The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said he was encouraged by the offer; Senate Democrats, while bristling at the demand for a budget, were also reassured and viewed it as a de-escalation of the debt fight.

The change in tack represented a retreat for House Republicans, who were increasingly isolated in their refusal to lift the debt ceiling. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio had previously said he would raise it only if it were paired with immediate spending cuts of equivalent value. The new strategy is designed to start a more orderly negotiation with President Obama and Senate Democrats on ways to shrink the trillion-dollar deficit.

To add muscle to their efforts to bring Senate Democrats to the table, House Republicans will include a provision in the debt ceiling legislation that says lawmakers will not be paid if they do not pass a budget blueprint, though questions have been raised whether that provision is constitutional.

That “no budget, no pay” provision offered Republicans a face-saving way out of a corner they had painted themselves into — and an effort to shift blame for any default onto the Senate if it balks. The House Republicans’ campaign arm quickly moved from taunting Democrats about raising the government’s borrowing limit to demanding that they sacrifice their paychecks if they fail to pass a budget.

“The Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget for four years. That is a shameful run that needs to end, this year,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement from Williamsburg. “We are going to pursue strategies that will obligate the Senate to finally join the House in confronting the government’s spending problem.”

House Democrats met the deal with scorn, indicating they would inflict maximum political pain by making Republicans either break a campaign promise to carry it to passage or defy their leaders. But other Democrats were more sanguine. The president had said he would not sign a short-term debt ceiling increase, but a senior administration official said that as long as there were no surprises, the White House was likely to accept the House’s offer. Most important, the official said, Republicans had broken from the “Boehner rule” imposed in 2011: any debt ceiling increase was to include a dollar-for-dollar spending reduction.

The decision represents a victory — at least for now — for Mr. Obama, who has said for months that he will not negotiate budget cuts under the threat of a debt default. By punting that threat into the spring, budget negotiations instead will center on two earlier points of leverage: March 1, when $1 trillion in across-the-board military and domestic cuts are set to begin, and March 27, when a stopgap law financing the government will expire.

Reordering the sequences of those hurdles was central to the delicate Republican deliberations that resulted in the new plan. In the days leading to the Williamsburg retreat, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman and former vice-presidential nominee, had been meeting with the leader and three past chairmen of the conservative House Republican Study Committee to discuss a way through the debt ceiling morass.

Those conversations led into Thursday morning, when Mr. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, opened the retreat by going through the timeline for the coming budget fights, according to aides who were there.

They turned the floor over to Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the House Ways and Means chairman, who delivered a blow-by-blow description of the economic disaster that could be wrought by a government default. Mr. Camp also talked through the notion held by some Republicans that the Treasury Department could manage a debt ceiling breach by channeling the daily in-flow of tax dollars to the most pressing needs, paying government creditors, sending out Social Security checks and financing the military. His message was that it would not work, the aides said.

Then Mr. Ryan stood to talk over the options he had developed with the House conservative leaders. They could do a longer-term debt ceiling extension with specific demands, like converting Medicare into a voucherlike program. Or they could lower expectations, reorder the budget hurdles with a three-month punt, and add the “no budget, no pay” provision.

Persuading Republicans who adamantly oppose raising the debt ceiling took some time, and the ensuing discussion stretched on and on, breaking at noon for lunch on Thursday, resuming at 2:30, until 4 p.m., then concluding Friday.

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority whip, met with freshmen early Friday to make sure they were on board. Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor joined Mr. Ryan for one last meeting with conservative leaders — Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Tom Price of Georgia — to make sure they were on board. Then the top four leaders sealed the agreement midmorning.

Mr. Obama will unveil his own 10-year budget plan in February, laying out his tax and spending plans for his second term. But Senate Democrats, for the past four years, have refused to move a budget blueprint to the Senate floor, in violation of the Budget Act of 1974, which laid out new rules for controlling deficits.

For the past two years, House Republicans have approved sweeping budget plans that would fundamentally remake Medicare and Medicaid, sharply reduce domestic spending, increase military spending and order a wholesale rewriting of the federal tax code. But without Senate negotiating partners, those plans, written by Mr. Ryan, have been more political statement than legislative program.

“This is the first step to get on the right track, reduce our deficit and get focused on creating better living conditions for our families and children,” Mr. Cantor said. “It’s time to come together and get to work.”

Ashley Parker contributed reporting from Williamsburg, Va.

View the original article here

Independents' vote crucial for Parker, Sinema in House battle

A tree-lined Phoenix street near the Arizona Biltmore offered a glimpse on a recent afternoon into the unpredictability of the 9th District congressional race.

Residents of three nearby houses were registered as Democrat, independent and Republican. Their varied affiliations reflect the nearly even split between the major parties in the district, as well as the prevalence of voters with "no party preference."

Republican Vernon Parker and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will have to court the independent crowd more than candidates in any other U.S. House race in the state.

In Arizona, only the 9th District is dominated by independents, who outnumber Republicans by 15,000 and Democrats by 21,000. By definition, these so-called swing voters are not easy to pin down.

Arizona has two other competitive districts -- northern Arizona's 1st District and southern Arizona's 2nd District -- but neither has as many independent voters.

"I don't like to classify myself with one or another. It's like belonging to one religion," said 58-year-old interior designer Karen Rapp, the independent living on the Phoenix street. She said she often votes Democratic for state offices and Republican for federal offices because she likes the idea of parties splitting power and thinks their platforms work better in those positions.

This time around, though, she plans to deviate and vote for Sinema because a neighbor -- the nearby registered Democrat -- works for the former state lawmaker's campaign and has sung her praises.

To attract more independent voters like Rapp, Parker and Sinema are touting their crossover appeal and accusing each other of being "extreme."

The candidates tell stories of overcoming childhood poverty through education and hard work. They argue that their ideas about taxes and the economy will help middle-class families. And on some issues, such as immigration, they advocate positions closer to the middle than some in their parties.

For instance, Sinema voted in the Legislature for sending National Guard troops to the border and stiffening penalties for owners of drophouses. In Congress, she wants to require banks to freeze suspected drug-cartel accounts.

Parker, on the other hand, recently told The Arizona Republic he would support some version of the Dream Act or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's alternative to provide a path to legal status for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally by their parents, though he did not specify what changes he would make to those plans.

Wes Gullett, a political strategist at the nonpartisan consulting firm FirstStrategic Communications and Public Affairs and a former Republican candidate for Phoenix mayor, said 9th District voters are among the most politically engaged in the state. Much of the district is expected to vote this fall.

An Arizona Republic analysis of voting data shows primary turnout, though small overall, was highest among independents in north and central Phoenix, suggesting the battle between Parker and Sinema may be fiercest there. The district also covers parts of Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Gullett, who is not supporting either candidate, said north-central Phoenix neighborhoods like Arcadia and areas near Piestewa Peak are always highly contested in city, legislative and congressional races. Voters in those areas pay attention, he said.

"There's lots of opportunity there for both campaigns to do well," Gullett said. "It all comes back to those swing voters and figuring out who those swing voters are."

Campaign battlegrounds

The Republic's analysis of 9th District primary data shows:

Independent turnout was small, offering only limited clues to the general election. A variety of factors, including the challenge of requesting a primary ballot, deter independents from voting in the primary. But campaigns use the information as one indicator of where to spend resources for the general election, when many more independents and party voters will cast ballots.

North-central Phoenix, followed by parts of Tempe, Mesa and Ahwatukee, drew the strongest independent turnout during the primary. Those areas are likely to draw high participation in the general election and could become campaign battlegrounds.

Independents voted like their neighbors. In precincts where registered Republicans cast more primary votes, independents also swung Republican. The same was true for precincts that leaned Democratic. Parker and Sinema will likely garner the most support from independents in areas where their party bases are enthusiastic.

Though independent registration continues to grow in Arizona, independents who vote in primaries remain rare, as is the case with all voters. Only 8.8 percent of ballots cast in the 9th District primary came from independents, according to data provided to The Republic from the Maricopa County Elections Department through the state Democratic Party.

One reason independents turn out in low numbers is the extra step to receive early primary ballots, said Paul Johnson, a former Phoenix Democratic mayor. While party voters on the permanent early-voting list automatically receive primary ballots, independents must tell the county Elections Department which party ballot they want.

That keeps many independents from voting, said Johnson.

He is advocating for passage of Proposition 121, which would eliminate the party-ballot system and allow voters, regardless of party, to vote for any candidate during the primary. Independents then would receive early ballots as party voters do. Opponents say in practice the system is unlikely to boost independent turnout.

Rapp, the independent Phoenix voter, didn't vote in the primary because she didn't receive an early ballot.

"It wasn't convenient," Rapp said.

Other independents may sit out primaries because they don't feel strongly enough to vote or don't think it's right to participate in a partisan primary, said Michael O'Neil, president of Tempe polling firm O'Neil Associates Inc.

Since many more independents are expected to vote on Nov. 6, the primary patterns provide some insight but aren't enough to predict the general-election outcome, O'Neil said.

"It might be suggestive, but it's not necessarily predictive," he said.

Still, independents are key to the race, he said, because party registrations are so close. If party voters turn out in equal numbers, swing voters could determine whether Parker or Sinema win.

The closest correlation between the primary and the general is turnout, said Jim Haynes, president of the Phoenix-based polling company Behavior Research Center. Areas that drew heavy participation from independent voters in the primary are likely to stay that way in the general.

Precincts with the highest independent turnout were in north-central Phoenix, where both Parker and Sinema drew strong support from party voters because of their long ties there. Parker served near the area as Paradise Valley mayor and councilman. Sinema was a state legislator and social worker in the area. Both resigned this year to focus on their campaigns.

The north Phoenix Madison Heights precinct, which abuts Paradise Valley, had the highest independent participation, 15 percent. Precincts with independent turnout higher than 9 percent also occurred in west Mesa, south Tempe and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Residents in those neighborhoods typically have higher incomes, higher education and deeper roots in the community, Gullett said. Those factors are often linked to turnout.

One anomaly may be in the Tempe precincts around Arizona State University, according to Gullett, where primary participation was tiny. Those areas could become more active in the fall when students are settled in school, he said.

Many unknowns

Though it's harder to predict how independents will vote in the general election, Republic maps of primary returns show independents largely followed the party leanings in their neighborhoods.

Independents went red in Republican-leaning northeast Phoenix, west Mesa and west Chandler, while independents went blue in Democratic-leaning central Phoenix, Tempe and downtown Chandler.

Campaigns will use that information, coupled with voter profiles compiled by the state parties and past elections results, to determine voters and neighborhoods to target with direct mail, phone calls and door-knocking.

Haynes said he wasn't surprised to see independents leaning in the same direction as their party-registered neighbors. Some independents may be disaffected party members who still vote with the party they dropped.

But much remains unknown about many independents, he said, such as whether they are former Democrats, former Republicans or independents from the start. If he were a part of a campaign, Haynes said, his biggest effort would be to "find out who these people are and how to reach them."

Much work ahead

Though the Parker and Sinema campaigns see value in understanding the primary voting patterns, they promise to go after both independents and party voters and to compete across the district.

The candidates' work is cut out for them.

Jeanette Irwin was watering her garden while she talked politics. The 68-year-old retired teacher and registered Republican said she's open to voting for either candidate, though she likes what she's heard about Parker.

"I'm still deciding," Irwin said. "We have many times voted Democratic if the candidates are better. … I wouldn't vote party totally. I financially support the Republican Party, but hey, if somebody else is better ?"

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Shifting Dynamics Favor G.O.P. House Majority

But the 2012 struggle for control of the House is shaping up less as a partisan surge than as a series of squalls, in which the outcome will largely depend on individual survival skills rather than a national movement.

In New York, Dan Maffei, a Democrat, hopes to snag back a seat he lost two years ago, while Representative Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who won in a special election last year, is trying desperately to hang on. In California, a nonpartisan primary and an expensive member-against-member contest between two Democrats, Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, have muddled the outlook in a state where Democrats had high hopes.

In Illinois, Democrats are trying to unseat several Republicans, from the freshman Bobby Schilling to the long-serving Judy Biggert, thanks to a redistricting advantage. Republicans are countering with the same strategy in North Carolina, where moderate Democrats like Larry Kissell and Mike McIntyre face challenges.

The overall dynamic favors Republicans, who look poised to maintain their hold on the House. More Democrats than Republicans have retired in districts where they were endangered, and more Republicans benefited from the decennial redistricting, leaving the Democrats with too small a cushion of Teflon incumbents as they try to regain a majority in the House.

Of the 80 races viewed as most competitive by The New York Times, based on polls and interviews with independent analysts, 32 are leaning Republican, 23 are leaning Democratic and 25 are tossups.

Although lawmakers’ approval ratings have hit historical lows, it appears that many voters want their representatives to continue to take the fight to the opposing party.

“There is no doubt that voters believe Washington is broken,” said David Wasserman, the House editor of The Cook Political Report. “But most believe it is broken because the other side broke it.”

Referring to Speaker John A. Boehner, the top Republican, and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, he added: “Voters in Boehner’s district believe they are sending Boehner there to fight Obama, and Pelosi’s district believes she is there to fight the Tea Party. It is a retrenchment, not a referendum.”

Unlike in 2006, when Democrats ran in unison against the Bush administration and dethroned the Republican majority, the Democrats now have no cohesive plan. Some will link themselves to President Obama; others will treat him and his policies like bedbugs.

At the same time, Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, does not appear to be creating the sort of political movement that Mr. Obama stirred in 2008, allowing Democrats to harness his momentum.

“In each of the past three election cycles,” Mr. Wasserman said, “things were all going right for one party. What we are seeing now is there is kind of a hybrid effect, with no real momentum for either party.”

The atmosphere is similar surrounding policy issues. Unlike the health care debate, which dominated the 2010 Congressional elections, with huge benefits for Republicans, no policy discussion appears to be dominating the House elections this year, beyond the universal desire for more jobs.

The upshot may well be a House with a few more Democrats or a few more Republicans but no radical reconstruction. More gridlock would be likely to follow.

“A lot had to go right for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker again, and a lot has gone wrong” for her to retrieve the gavel, said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The Democrats, of course, will not retreat. With a message that focuses on House Republican votes, combined with the targeting of open seats and seats held by the most conservative members, Democratic officials believe it is possible to eke out the net gain of 25 seats needed to take back the House.

The party has “a gentle breeze behind our backs,” said Representative Steve Israel of New York, who leads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“Whether it is strong enough to take us to the majority remains to be seen, but election night will be a good night for Democrats,” Mr. Israel said.

The Democratic Party’s first step is to go after Tea Party-tinted incumbents in districts where they seem out of step with most voters. The Democrats have very good shots at defeating, for instance, Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois, who has derided his opponent, Tammy Duckworth, a disabled Iraq war veteran, over how often she talks about her military service, and Representative Ann Marie Buerkle of New York, who was blessed by Sarah Palin.

But Republicans have also outfoxed Democrats through redistricting and moving candidates around.

View the original article here

Running for Ron Paul’s House Seat, but Not in His Image

It is hard enough to get voters to remember their names — there are nine Republicans running — in an election that is rife with confusion because of a delayed primary date and redrawn boundaries. And for all the hero worship Mr. Paul has cultivated among a small but vocal subset of the electorate, nobody is rushing to imitate “Dr. No.”

“I don’t get a sense that people are looking for the next Ron Paul,” said Jay Old, a Beaumont lawyer and the top fund-raiser in the crowded field. “I think they are looking for people who want the very best for the district.”

Partisan gerrymandering often turns political jurisdictions into zigzagging monstrosities, but the redrawn Congressional District 14 is straightforward and compact. It starts at the southeast corner of Texas, along the Louisiana border, and going west picks up two whole coastal counties, Jefferson and Galveston, and about half of another, Brazoria.

It was not what Mr. Paul, the 76-year-old physician, had in mind. The district lost much of its rural character, and he faced the daunting prospect of introducing himself to about 300,000 people who were not in the old version of the district.

Though he is running for president, Mr. Paul could have also legally sought re-election, as he did in 2008. Mr. Paul is now in his 12th term.

He quit instead, and the race to fill his Republican-leaning seat has become a free-for-all among Republicans.

If none of the nine candidates wins half of the vote outright on May 29, the top two will face off in a July 31 runoff. That appears to be the most likely scenario.

Whoever emerges will probably face former United States Representative Nick Lampson, Democrat of Beaumont, who has strong ties to the area and an even stronger conviction that the seat will be competitive in the fall. There are 11 major party candidates altogether, plus Zach Grady, a Libertarian, running for the seat.

There are four Republican candidates whose money and political connections give them the best shot at making a runoff. Mr. Old has raised the most money and had $308,000 on hand as of the last reporting period, which ended in April. He is already running TV ads, but his history of voting in past Democratic primaries and his donations to Democratic candidates have prompted criticism from his Republican opponents.

Mr. Old, 48, said that Democrats traditionally dominated elections in his native Jefferson County, and that when there were no options in the Republican primary, “that means you pick the most qualified, most conservative candidate the other side offers.”

Michael Truncale, another well-financed Republican from Beaumont, is stressing his grass-roots appeal and political reach as a State Republican Executive Committee member. At last count, Mr. Truncale, 54, a lawyer and former Texas State University System regent, had $149,000 in the bank.

One possible factor working against both men is their home county: its tradition of voting for Democrats means Republican turnout could be much lower there than in the western part of the district.

That is one reason State Representative Randy Weber of Pearland is expected to make the runoff. The owner of an air-conditioning company he started in 1981, Mr. Weber takes pride in his 2009 designation as the most conservative member of the Texas House, as scored by the Texas Conservative Coalition. He also picked up Gov. Rick Perry’s endorsement.

“I have a track record of conservative action,” said Mr. Weber, who traces his political activism to former President Ronald Reagan’s re-election bid. “I don’t just know all the talking points. I’ve lived them for 29 years.” Mr. Weber had raised $282,000 for the race and had the second-highest cash-on-hand figure in the Republican field — $227,000, as of the last reporting period.

View the original article here

House Republicans to Tackle Federal Budget

The budget, which passed the House last month and has since become a central focus of the presidential campaign, has faced blistering criticism for steep cuts to federal programs, including a blast from President Obama, who called it “thinly veiled social Darwinism.”

But the deep reductions that Mr. Obama spelled out for higher education, medical research, crime fighting and Head Start are more supposition than reality until the details are filled out. And the charge that such cuts would merely pay for still more tax cuts for the rich is expressly denied by Republican leaders who foresee no change in revenue under the budget.

Now the real work begins. Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the House Ways and Means chairman, will hold meetings with Republican the rank and file next week to map out an overhaul of the tax code that strips it down to just two personal income tax rates — 25 percent and 10 percent — and a 25 percent corporate income tax rate, and to pay for it by curtailing or ending tax deductions and credits.

A half-dozen committees will begin drafting legislation to meet a budget-mandated $261 billion in savings over the next decade to stave off scheduled across-the-board cuts to the military in January. First up will be the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, with a bill to curb medical malpractice suits and save the government $39.7 billion over 10 years. On Wednesday, the Financial Services Committee will vote on legislation to save $35 billion over a decade by eliminating a fund designed to prevent future bank bailouts, ending a foreclosure reduction effort, slicing $4.9 billion from the federal flood insurance program, and putting the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Congressional control and cutting its budget by $5.4 billion.

Also on Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee will draft a measure to save $53 billion over 10 years, in part by grabbing back overpayments for subsidized insurance purchases under the new health care law and by requiring parents to present a Social Security number to claim child care tax credits.

The Agriculture Committee must slice $33.2 billion from its programs, most likely focusing on nutrition and food stamps. The House Energy and Commerce Committee must find nearly $100 billion in savings when it meets in two weeks. Much of it will come from repealing parts of the president’s health care law and curbing medical liability lawsuits.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, said: “President Obama’s own secretary of defense has said the defense sequester would ‘hollow out’ our armed forces. We have a responsibility to show a better, smarter option.”

Even with these efforts, critics say the budget is far less groundbreaking than its supporters and opponents say it is. For all his big numbers on spending reductions and tax changes, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee, included few details or instructions to make them happen.

The attainability of his deficit reduction targets are “impossible to know unless you start to describe what kind of cuts are really required,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who supports the ambition of the budget but faults its partisan tilt.

For instance, to meet its deficit reduction targets, the House budget calls for nearly $1.9 trillion in savings from entitlement programs outside Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, so called other mandatory spending, but it instructs committee chairmen to draft legislation securing a tiny fraction of that amount.

The budget describes significant changes to Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. Medicare would be transformed from a government-run insurance program to a menu of private insurance plans subsidized by the government. Medicaid and food stamps would be converted to block grants to the states, which would be allowed to impose work requirements and time limits. But nowhere are the relevant committees mandated to actually draft the legislation to make any of that happen. Mr. Camp has already indicated he has no intention of drafting Medicare legislation that has no chance of becoming law. And Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, has already said he has no intention of passing a budget this year.

The House Appropriations Committee would have to find cuts from domestic discretionary programs through 2022 totaling $1.44 trillion below program growth through inflation, 25 percent, or $1.2 trillion — 21 percent — below caps agreed to last summer, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research organization. But that cutting would not kick in until 2014, when appropriators would have to cut domestic spending by 24 percent. For fiscal 2013, the budget that must be finished before the election, the cut is a more manageable 9.8 percent below inflation growth and 7.5 percent below agreed-upon levels.

The two biggest question marks are on a tax overhaul and the black box of “other mandatory” cuts. On taxes, collapsing the current six tax brackets into two, with the highest bracket dropping to 25 percent from 35 percent, would cost the Treasury revenue totaling $4.5 trillion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Democrats and some tax experts say that paying for that with loophole closings cannot be done, unless Republicans plan to gut tax programs for the working poor, like the earned income credit.

But Sage Eastman, a spokesman for the Ways and Means Committee, said Mr. Camp was eager to prove them wrong. Donald Marron, a former Bush administration economist and president of the Tax Policy Center, tallied $7.7 trillion in “tax expenditures” over the next five years.

“I’ll say emphatically we can do it,” Mr. Eastman said.

View the original article here

In House Races, Redistricting a Hurdle for New York Democrats

The Democratic Party suddenly faces the prospect of having to play defense in pockets around the state this fall, as Congressional districts once considered safe for the party have become more vulnerable, partly as a result of new Congressional maps put in place by a federal court.

For months, national Democrats had been counting on gains in New York to help the party pick up a few of the 25 additional seats it needs to reclaim the House. The situation developing in New York could undermine that strategy. But top Democrats insist that their incumbents are in strong positions and that the party will pick up seats, particularly since President Obama is at the top of the ticket and remains popular throughout the state.

House Republicans face their own challenges in the state, as top Democrats in Washington point out. Several Republican incumbents — most of them freshmen who took office in 2010 with the Tea Party support — must defend their seats against potentially strong Democratic challengers.

The Democrats

Representative Kathy Hochul, District 27

A first-term Democrat, Ms. Hochul is considered among the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in New York. She achieved national prominence last year when she won a special election in a conservative district in the Buffalo area by turning the race into a referendum on a Republican proposal in Washington to overhaul Medicare.

The new Congressional map has made her district even more Republican, making her re-election prospects more difficult. Two Republicans are seeking the nomination to run against her: Chris Collins, the former Erie County executive; and David Bellavia, a veteran of the Iraq war and a Tea Party activist.

Representative Louise Slaughter, District 25

After serving nearly 25 years in Congress, Ms. Slaughter may be facing the most difficult challenge of her career. As a result of the new Congressional map, her district was consolidated into Monroe County, becoming slightly more Republican but still predominantly Democratic.

Now, Maggie A. Brooks, the popular Republican county executive in Monroe, has entered the race to unseat Ms. Slaughter, buoyed by the fact that her political base is in the heart of the congresswoman’s new district.

Representative Bill Owens, District 21

Mr. Owens, who represents this conservative district in northernmost upstate New York, initially won his seat in a 2009 special election and was re-elected the next year. In both instances, Mr. Owens won with less than 50 percent of the vote. And in both instances, his candidacy was helped by a third-party Conservative candidate who undercut the Republicans.

But that is unlikely to happen this year because Republicans and Conservatives appear to be coalescing behind Matthew A. Doheny, the Republican candidate who lost to Mr. Owens in 2010. Another Republican, Kellie Greene, is also seeking to run against Mr. Owens.

Representative Timothy H. Bishop, District 1

On Long Island, Mr. Bishop, a five-term Democrat, is girding for a rematch with Randy Altschuler, a successful Republican businessman who nearly defeated the congressman in 2010. Mr. Altschuler is an aggressive campaigner, having spent $2.9 million of his own money in 2010.

Mr. Altschuler got a lift recently when he received the endorsement of the Independence Party. That could make a difference, Republicans say, given that Mr. Altschuler lost to Mr. Bishop by a slim margin in the moderate district, which stretches across the eastern half of Long Island.

The Republicans

Representative Ann Marie Buerkle, District 24

Ms. Buerkle, a Republican, who won her seat in the Syracuse area in a big upset in 2010, is hoping to prove that her election was no fluke. But Republicans and Democrats alike say Ms. Buerkle, a Tea Party favorite, faces an uphill battle in the new district, which analysts say leans Democratic.

Ms. Buerkle is going up against the man she defeated in 2010, Dan Maffei, an aggressive campaigner who has already amassed about as much money as she has.

Representative Chris Gibson, District 19

The new Congressional map severely undercut Mr. Gibson, a first-term Republican who won in 2010. Mr. Gibson’s district went from being a Republican-leaning district to a swing district that Democrats believe they have a strong shot at picking up.

Mr. Gibson is facing a challenge by a political newcomer, Julian Schriebman, a former chairman of the Ulster County Democratic Party who is running on his experience as a federal prosecutor who tried terrorists.

Representative Nan Hayworth, District 18

In 2010, Ms. Hayworth, a first-term Republican from the suburbs north of New York City, won her seat with strong Tea Party support against a Democratic incumbent who fellow Democrats say underestimated her. But Democrats and independent analysts say she is vulnerable this year.

No fewer than four Democrats have lined up to run against her, including Sean Patrick Maloney, an aide to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer; Tom Wilson, the mayor of Tuxedo Park; Rich Becker, a town councilman in Cortlandt; and Matt Alexander, the mayor of Wappingers Falls.

Representative Michael G. Grimm, District 11

Mr. Grimm, a Republican who captured his seat in 2010 with strong support from the Tea Party, has found himself enmeshed in a controversy that Democrats say makes him vulnerable.

Mr. Grimm, who represents a district that includes Staten Island and part of western Brooklyn, has been facing intense scrutiny after The New York Times reported in January that his lead fund-raiser in the 2010 campaign was under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some donors said Mr. Grimm and the fund-raiser indicated that they would accept illegal donations. Republicans have stood behind Mr. Grimm, who has denied any wrongdoing.

Democrats, in the meantime, are getting behind Mark Murphy, the son of a former congressman, after failing to recruit Michael E. McMahon, the candidate who lost to Mr. Grimm in 2010.

View the original article here

House speaker ready to drop stalled transport bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, signaling a lack of Republican support for a stalled $260 billion transportation bill, said on Thursday he was ready to pursue a less ambitious version under consideration by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

A day after imploring House Republicans to end their deep divisions over the five-year measure to rebuild roads, bridges and railways, Boehner moved a step closer to giving up on the troubled House bill altogether.

"The current plan is to see what the Senate can produce and to bring their bill up," Boehner told a news conference. "In the meantime we're going to continue to have conversations with members about a longer-term approach, which most of our members want. But at this point in time, the plan is to bring up the Senate bill or something like it."

Being forced to take up the Senate bill would be another potential setback for Boehner, who has repeatedly struggled to whip up support among conservative Republicans on spending bills. He also has castigated the Senate for failing to consider jobs bills passed by the lower chamber.

The shift to a Senate bill also means Boehner would have to sell House Republicans on a two-year, $109 billion measure that will not contain several provisions they favor.

The Senate on Thursday rejected an amendment that would approve TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada to Texas.

The House version has faced difficulties from the start, alienating fiscally conservative Republicans over its price tag while Democrats and some Republicans have opposed a provision that would end dedicated funding for mass transit projects.

But House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica said he was not giving up on the measure, and that his staff was working with the Boehner and other Republican leaders to try to marshal sufficient votes for passage.

Time is running short, however, as current funding for road and rail construction projects expires on March 31. As many as 1.8 million construction workers would face layoffs if a new measure is not signed into law by then, Democrats say.

"We're not going to let March 31 go by and experience any kind of a shutdown. That is not an option under consideration," Mica said, adding that one possibility was a temporary extension.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; editing by Vicki Allen and Mohammad Zargham)

View the original article here

House Republicans riven by internal battle over spending

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A battle among Republicans in the House of Representatives over government spending laid bare on Thursday deep divisions that threaten the party's hopes of major gains in the November congressional elections.

House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, faced a new challenge to his authority as lawmakers aligned to the budget-slashing Tea Party movement ignored his plea to support a $260 billion job creation measure he had championed.

Boehner told reporters he was ready to abandon the highway, bridges and railroad funding bill after fiscally conservative lawmakers balked at the price tag.

The bill was meant to help Republicans stake an election-year claim as the party of job creation, funding as many as 7.8 million new jobs in the U.S. construction industry.

But Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers, a powerful group within the 242-member House Republican caucus, were elected in 2010 on a wave of voter discontent over a bad economy and government spending. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be uncompromising on tax and spending issues, bringing the United States to the brink of an unprecedented debt default last year.

"This is a very difficult process we're in," Boehner acknowledged on Thursday. "We've got a new majority, we've got 89 freshmen and my job every day is to work with our members and find out where the center of gravity is," he said.

Boehner has struggled over the past year to control an unruly caucus that has often bucked his leadership, raising repeated questions about his staying power. The Republican leader and aides dismiss talk that he is vulnerable to an ouster.

But internal revolt is also stirring over federal spending levels for 2013. Fiscally conservative lawmakers now want even deeper spending cuts than those agreed to with the White House in a deficit reduction deal last August.

So, instead of putting the finishing touches on a budget that they can contrast with Democratic spending priorities in an election year, Republican leaders huddled with House Budget Committee members on Thursday in an effort to quell the conflict within their party.

But they failed to agree on a spending cut target that could please both conservatives and more moderate members.

"There are differences of opinion within our conference," Representative Mike Simpson told reporters after the meeting.

AIDES ACKNOWLEDGE DIFFICULTIES

Veteran Washington political analyst Larry Sabato said there was a "deep divide, not fully acknowledged within the caucus."

"They don't grasp how deep," he said.

The intra-party infighting comes seven weeks after House Republicans pledged at a party retreat to bury their differences and unify to defeat President Barack Obama in November.

The display of unity followed a public relations nightmare for them in December when the party struggled to heal an internal rift over whether to extend a costly payroll tax cut extension for 160 million Americans.

The squabbling threatens to distract the party when it is meant to be focused on retaining control of the House and recapturing the Senate from Democrats.

Two senior House Republicans aides, asking not to be identified, acknowledged the difficulties their party faced just eight months before the November 6 elections.

"It is easy to take a snapshot now and say, 'look things aren't going well,'" one of the aides said, while laying the blame on Democrats. "We don't have the Senate and we don't have the White House. Nobody expected this Congress would be easy."

The second aide said Boehner was in a difficult bind. If he decided to allow a 2013 House budget proposal with deeper spending cuts than planned in order to win Tea Party support, he could end up painting the party into a corner.

The aide said setting a lower level in the spending bills might be popular with some voters, but the bills, which must be approved by September 30, were unlikely to get Democratic votes and enough moderate Republican support to assure passage.

That would leave Republicans with two choices just six weeks before the November 6 elections, the aide said: Switch their votes to support the higher spending levels - a potentially embarrassing move - or threaten government shutdowns as funding would be running out with the start of the new fiscal year on October 1. That likely would bring a strong voter backlash.

Representative Bill Shuster, a six-term Republican who worked to build Republican support for the now-stalled transportation bill, said the large number of Republican newcomers to the House makes for an uphill battle.

"You have 89 members who never seen a transportation bill before," Shuster said of the freshmen, many of them Tea Party supporters. "It's a lot of people to educate."

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro, editing by Ross Colvin; desking by Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here

U.S. House GOP look to reshape birth control debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Republican leaders are looking for a way to reshape the debate over the administration's new rule on birth-control insurance coverage before moving ahead with a bid to nullify the requirement.

Representative Jeff Fortenberry, who has introduced legislation on the issue, acknowledged hesitation by some fellow Republicans to take on the incendiary issue. But he said a delay could give Republicans time to recast the issue as a question of religious freedom rather than women's rights.

We'll keep trying to appropriately frame the debate about this core American principle," Fortenberry said.

Representative Pete Sessions, who heads the House Republican campaign committee, said party leaders are not backing off. “We're not hesitant to do anything," Sessions said. The successful rain dance has a lot to do with timing."

House Republicans have taken a cautious approach after the Senate, mostly on party lines, rejected a measure that would have allowed employers with moral objections to opt out of birth control coverage and other services.

The administration's plan would require employers, including charities and other religious institutions, to provide contraception coverage at no extra charge.

Senator Roy Blunt, who offered the Senate measure, said Democrats' framing of the issue as a women's rights question proved to be a problem. We're not going to win that debate on birth control," said Blunt. But the debate over religious liberty is not going to go away."

The issue has made some Republicans cautious in an election year, when most voters are concerned about U.S. economic growth and job creation, said one aide.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Republican leaders were still discussing with members how best to move forward.

Fortenberry said it is unclear whether his legislation will be the bill that moves forward in the House. But he believes he has the votes to ensure passage.

FIRST OBAMA, THEN REPUBLICANS

Obama faced an uproar from religious groups over the administration's birth control requirement. But he moved quickly to quell it by altering the rule so employers with religious affiliations would not be required to offer free birth control to workers.

Insurers would instead bear the onus to provide coverage.

Republicans said the compromise did not go far enough and announced plans to move forward with measures that would override the ruling.

Incendiary comments by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “slut" and “prostitute" for speaking out in support of the Obama policy, helped Democrats reframe the issue to their political advantage, analysts said.

Limbaugh, who has lost advertisers who found his comments objectionable, has since apologized.

It looked like an attack on women and women are the majority of the electorate," said Jennifer Lawless of the Women and Politics Institute at American University.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey last week of 1,500 adults showed nearly two-thirds of Americans favor Obama's policy, including clear majorities of Catholics and evangelicals.

A number of religious groups have filed lawsuits challenging the new rule.

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, a former congressional aide, said House Speaker John Boehner has good reason to schedule a vote on a measure to overturn the rule.

While jobs and the economy are the number one issue, this is one of those niche issues that can really make a difference in the election among Catholic voters," he said.

They respond well to the issue of religious freedoms," he added. If Catholic congregations hear that Republicans are on their side, that can only help them in November."

View the original article here