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

The Weekend Word: Reversal

In Today’s Times:

Backing off from their tough stance on the nation’s finances, House Republicans said Friday that they would support lifting the debt limit for three months if Congress could pass a budget in that time. The move paved the way for deficit reduction talks and most likely will head off a default by the federal government, Jonathan Weisman reports.As President Obama is sworn in for a second term, the donors who worked hardest to get him there are angling for plum embassy posts, following unspoken rules like preparing to serve for just a short time to make room for others. As many as 300 people are vying for about only 30 positions, Nicholas Confessore and Sheryl Gay Stolberg report.Heading into his inauguration, Mr. Obama holds the approval of a slight majority of Americans, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. Respondents are deeply polarized by party, Jackie Calmes and Megan Thee-Brenan report.

Weekly Address:

Mr. Obama called on Congress in his weekly address to join the White House in taking steps to prevent gun violence by requiring universal background checks, banning assault weapons and strengthening law enforcement. “Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms,” he said. “But I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from causing harm on a massive scale.”Representative James Lankford of Oklahoma, the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, asked Democrats to pass a budget in the Senate and work with Republicans to address the nation’s spending. “But because government debt really does affect all of us, Republicans will not simply provide a blank check for uncontrolled spending, irrational borrowing and constant nickel-and-dime tax increases,” he said.

Washington Happenings:

The Obama and Biden families will begin the weekend of inauguration festivities by participating in a community service project Saturday as part of the National Day of Service.On Sunday, Mr. Obama will be officially sworn in for a second term at the White House and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Naval Observatory. Later, they will speak at an inaugural reception at the National Building Museum.

View the original article here

Prominent Republicans Criticize Obama's Executive Actions

Prominent Republicans are accusing President Obama of abusing his executive power by taking 23 executive actions on gun violence at the same time that he asked Congress to pass legislation.

While Mr. Obama’s legislative proposal was sweeping — he asked lawmakers to ban the sale of military-style rifles and close a loophole that allows many gun buyers to avoid background checks — his unilateral actions were smaller. They included ordering federal agencies to share more information with the background-check system; nominating a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and directing subordinates to “launch a national dialogue” on mental health issues.

Soon after the White House news conference, Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who is considered a potential contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, denounced Mr. Obama as flouting the role of Congress for taking some actions on his own.

“Making matters worse is that President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress,” Mr. Rubio said. “President Obama’s frustration with our republic and the way it works doesn’t give him license to ignore the Constitution.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also accused the president of exceeding the limits of his executive authority.

“Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment is a power grab along the same pattern we’ve seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people,” he said. “Some of these directives clearly run afoul of limitations Congress has placed on federal spending bringing the president’s actions in direct conflict with federal law.”

And Reince Priebus, the chairman of the National Republican Committee, said Mr. Obama’s series of unilateral steps “amount to an executive power grab” that “disregard the Second Amendment and the legislative process,” violating principles of representative government.

Asked which of Mr. Obama’s 23 executive steps Mr. Rubio had specifically been referring to as an abuse of power that ignored the Constitution, a spokesman for the senator, said in an e-mail: “I think his point generally is that the president should be looking to work with the Congress, not around it.”

By contrast, a spokeswoman for Mr. Grassley, responding to the same question, pointed to two specific steps: Mr. Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the causes and prevention of gun violence and he sent a letter to health care providers saying that a provision in his health law does not prevent doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes.

Those steps, Mr. Grassley’s office contended, ran afoul of federal statutes because a C.D.C. financing restriction “effectively keeps it from conducting any research or analysis related to gun violence” and the health care law bars wellness programs from requiring the disclosure and collection of information about firearms in homes.

Obama administration officials countered, however, that the health care law provision bars the creation of a database, not individual questions by doctors about potentially dangerous situations. And, they said, the plain text of the C.D.C. financing restriction says no funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” which is different from conducting public health research.

“For a long time, some members have claimed that that prohibits them from conducting any research on the causes of gun violence,” a senior administration official said during a briefing call with reporters. “Our lawyers looked at it and thought that the definition didn’t really encompass public health research on gun violence, which really isn’t advocacy.”

Mr. Grassley’s office also flagged three other steps announced by Mr. Obama as potentially running afoul of federal statutes, saying it was difficult to know for sure without seeing their details.

They included reviewing regulations that protect the privacy of health information to ensure that they do not prevent states from submitting information about mentally ill people to the federal background-check system, improving incentives to get states to participate in the system, and sending a letter to health care providers clarifying that federal law does not prevent them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

In the days leading up to the news conference, conservative commentators and media outlets had pressed a theme that Mr. Obama was threatening to take potentially tyrannical anti-gun action by executive order.

On Jan. 9, The Drudge Report ran the large headline “WHITE HOUSE THREATENS ‘EXECUTIVE ORDERS’ ON GUNS,” illustrated with pictures of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. And on Tuesday the radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that the Obama administration cannot get “the gun laws that they prefer” to pass Congress, “so they’re just going to do it unilaterally with the executive order. Now I’m not lying to you when I tell you that is not what executive orders permit.”

View the original article here

Back to basics at the Legislature

A new state Legislature takes office Monday, with many members intent on focusing on the nuts and bolts of government and showing little patience for the bills that in recent years have made Arizona a punch line for late-night comedy shows.

The 51st Legislature takes the oath of office about noon, followed by Gov. Jan Brewer's annual State of the State address.

Controversy has marked the start of recent legislative sessions, due to massive budget problems and simmering tensions over anti-federal moves ranging from Senate Bill 1070 to President Barack Obama's birth certificate. But lawmakers, so far, are not pushing those hot-button topics.

Republicans have lost their supermajority but maintain control of both chambers. Some say the narrower party margins may force more cooperation and prevent the passage of some of the more controversial measures seen in past years.

In their place, say Brewer and leaders from both parties, will be a focus on more pragmatic issues: education, child welfare, the budget and whether the state should expand its Medicaid rolls.

That doesn't mean there will be a lack of fireworks, though. Bills and competing proposals over gun control are flying in the wake of the Dec. 14 massacre of 20 first-graders and six school officials in Newtown, Conn.

And this is Arizona government, where something surprising crops up every year.

"I think it will be unpredictable," said Kim MacEachern, staff attorney at the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council, who works with lawmakers on legislation. "There are so many new people and the split between everybody is different than they've had in a while. You've got the Republican Party splits, more Democrats and more independent thinkers."

Divided leaders

Republicans ousted Senate President Steve Pierce of Prescott in favor of Andy Biggs, from Gilbert, who tends to align more with the "tea party" factions of the Republican Party.

Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix, will serve as majority leader and Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, as majority whip. Both are considered more moderate than Biggs and have voted against the party line on occasion. The political differences could prove a diversion as Biggs tries to push the Republican agenda with fewer votes to spare than the GOP has had in prior years. But the leaders say they see the diversity as a positive.

"Everybody in the caucus has somebody they can go to," Driggs said.

The narrower margins will also mean bill watchers will likely need to keep on their toes. One absent conservative Republican could spell trouble in situations where the moderate Republican faction aligns with Democrats to oppose an effort. Expect to see committee agendas and bill votes rescheduled more often and with little notice as leadership tries to assure enough support is in attendance.

Democrats increased their Senate numbers to 13 in the fall election, up from nine last year.

Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix, the incoming minority leader, said she hopes for a more bipartisan atmosphere and a more open process.

In the House, Republicans will have a 12-vote edge over Democrats, 36 to 24. That's down from the 40-20 split of the past two years.

Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, returns as speaker of the House and, in addition to the usual emphasis on budget and job creation, added a new element to the mix: a keen focus on water issues for rural Arizona.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said the Democrats' pickup of four seats should give them more influence.

"There will be more opportunities for partnerships between Democrats and Republicans to stop legislation that may be objectionable to the majority of people in the state," he said.

Democrats will again push legislation to make government more transparent. Clearer and tighter rules on campaign finance are one focus; they also will target gifts and other perks given to lawmakers.

Hold-the-line budget

A lot of legislative work this session will pivot around the budget. Republicans are intent on holding the line on spending, citing the future costs of federal health-care reform and the economy's so-far sluggish recovery. They say they're interested in funding growth in school, health care and prison populations, but little else.

"Folks are looking at status-quo spending," Biggs said.

The current budget is $8.6billion; the legislative-budget staff projects $8.7billion for fiscal 2014, which begins July 1.

Meanwhile, Democrats argue that with an expected $700million surplus, plus a "rainy-day fund" of $450million, the state needs to spend some money on programs that took deep cuts when it was trying to eliminate billion-dollar budgets.

Brewer will figure prominently in this debate. She has signaled she wants a significant increase for Child Protective Services -- her director of the state Department of Economic Security is seeking $50million -- and has acknowledged the needs of Arizona's education system, especially as a new set of standards kicks in.

The temporary 1-cent-per-dollar increase she fought for in the state sales tax expires in June, and her budget will reflect her approach on how Arizona can balance its budget without the $900million a year infusion the tax provided.

Brewer has kept mum on details; some will be in her State of the State address, followed by presentation of her entire plan on Friday.

Jobs and taxes

With a package of business tax cuts still phasing in, there is little talk about further tax reductions as the session approaches.

McComish said he had not heard any early talk about tax cuts.

Rep. Tom Forese, R-Chandler, and incoming chairman of the House Commerce Committee, said he's looking west as Arizona tries to boost its employment picture.

"I'd like to aggressively target California," he said, noting that state's regulatory and taxing environment is pushing firms, especially high-tech companies, to look elsewhere.

His idea: earmark money in the state budget to go after California firms. He had no price tag for the effort, but said he thinks it would have broad support.

"We can beat each other up over issues that are partisan," he said. "But bringing jobs from California is a nonpartisan issue."

Election changes

Biggs created a committee to focus on election-related matters, responding to issues that cropped up in the wake of last fall's election as well as a citizen's research into the recall process.

"A lot of people are very concerned about the electoral process," Biggs said.

Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, will chair the panel. She said she already has six bills of her own to introduce, and fellow lawmakers have approached her with a number of other ideas.

She also would like to standardize the time frames and procedures for recall and general elections; recall campaigns in Fountain Hills and of former state Senate President Russell Pearce highlighted discrepancies in election law. Reagan also wants to tighten oversight of paid-petition circulators.

When a circulator fraudulently gathers signatures, as has been alleged in recent campaigns, those petitions get thrown out. That hurts the voter who signed the petition, effectively disenfranchising them, she said.

Gun debate

Two months ago, no one would have predicted guns would be a legislative hot-button issue this session.

Pro-Second Amendment lawmakers likely would have proposed another version of past bills to put guns on college campuses or into public buildings. But two years of Brewer vetoes has given a clear signal that the governor has concerns, and efforts may be useless. There appeared to be no great groundswell for more loosening of state gun laws, particularly without vocal gun supporter Ron Gould behind the movement. Gould left the Legislature to run unsuccessfully for Congress.

But the Connecticut shooting has brought the issue to the forefront again. Expect a battle this session over arming teachers, finding more funding for school-resource officers and efforts to instill new gun controls.

Other issues

Lawmakers file more than a thousand bills each session, most of them within the first few weeks of the session. So far, about 90 have been filed. Often the most controversial are kept secret until the last minute.

The Arizona Citizens Defense League, which is behind many of the bills to loosen state gun laws, does not disclose its legislative agenda in advance. Nor does the Center for Arizona Policy, the group behind most of the bills dealing with abortion restrictions, contraception, religious-freedom issues and school choice.

Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod said the group is still working on its agenda, but predicted its list of bills may not be as robust this session as in the past, particularly in the area of abortion restrictions.

"We've gotten quite a bit done in the past four years," she said. "And the critical factor this next session is that we've got two cases on abortion pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Let's let those issues work their way through the courts."

The cases deal with last year's ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and restrictions on public funds for providers that perform abortions.

House Assistant Minority Leader Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, said he hopes the narrower margin between parties will prevent many of the most controversial bills from getting too far.

"This is an opportunity for us to work together to get some good, common-sense bills passed as well as kill some bad ones," he said. "We're going to come in peace. And then if we have to go to the barricades, we'll go to the barricades."

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

Graffiti vandals never deserve the title 'artist'

(PNI) Regarding "Group targets graffiti laws" (Valley & State, Friday):

Thank you for not once in this report calling the graffiti vandals "graffiti artists."

These vandals are nothing more than destroyers of our society.

There is nothing admirable in what they do and should never be honored with a prestigious title, like "artist."

Don't be so afraid of the politically correct gang. Let's get back to calling a spade a spade and you will stop the regression of our society.

-- Jennifer Lanoue, Peoria

Gun insurance isn't good

Regarding "Link firearms, insurance" (Opinions, Thursday):

The idea of requiring liability insurance for gun ownership as we do for auto ownership sounds good on the surface. But there are three very big problems:

1. Only the responsible, law-abiding residents will comply, which leaves the corrupt, secretive and crazies.

2. It provides a complete registry of law-abiding people and a list of the guns they own, from which a corrupt government could come in and seize -- neither of which the law-abiding, sane, reasonable gun owners would agree to.

3. More and more restrictions, registry, background checks, etc., will just make more and more guns drop off the radar.

The problem is not the guns. It is how a very small percentage of people misuse them. You want better humans, more sensitive to these horrors?

Then work on how to bring out the best in people.

My solution? Train everyone on how to respectfully use a gun. Remove the TV shows, movies and video games that glorify "blowing people away" and desensitize those who watch. Bring God back into daily life.

-- Sunie Kendall, Goodyear

Give teachers stun guns

A common-sense approach to school safety would be to train and arm teachers with Tasers.

I can't believe I am the only one who has thought of this. The only reason it isn't being discussed is because of the desire by the left to put more restrictions on gun ownership by continuing to talk about arming teachers with guns.

Most people think arming teachers is a bad idea, and so they lean toward more restrictions on gun ownership by default.

More laws to restrict gun ownership are nothing more than feel-good measures, and common-sense ideas don't enter the debate when it is controlled by the left-wing media.

-- David Talich, Phoenix

Hagel shows intolerance

Regarding "Hagel puts America first" (Opinions, Friday):

The letter writer nicely and unwittingly exemplifies why individuals like Sen. Chuck Hagel should not serve our country as secretary of Defense. "Zionist lobby?" Really?

Hagel has remarked that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people."

Any individual espousing such a charged, and might I say, bigoted, opinion such as this has no place representing the United States as Defense secretary. It does not reflect Hagel's commitment to "put America first," it merely gives away his own prejudices. Any such individual would be incapable of objectively mediating America's needs, which include the need to support the Middle East's only true democracy, Israel.

"Jewish lobby and their influence," "Zionist lobby" -- individuals who so freely incorporate such phrases into their language merely reveal their own intolerance.

-- Rachel Waite, Tempe

Cartoon applies to U.S.

Steve Benson's cartoon on Thursday using Abe Lincoln's comment that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" is right on with one exception. It should have included the whole United States, not just the Republican Party.

-- Becky Kolb, Sun Lakes

Phoenix to miss Simplot

I read that Tom Simplot will not be running for re-election to the Phoenix City Council this year. As a business owner in central Phoenix, I can tell you this is a definite loss for our city.

Tom has marked his time on the council by listening to our communities and our businesses and working to make our city a better place to live and work.

I hope whoever decides to run to fill this position takes good notes on what Tom has done.

It has been a giant step forward not just for central Phoenix, but for our city as a whole.

-- Kurt Stickler, Phoenix

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

Republicans May Offer Short-Term Extension of Borrowing Limit

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republicans’ former vice-presidential nominee and an influential party voice on fiscal policy, said Thursday that Republicans were considering allowing a short-term extension of the federal debt limit of a month or so to foster more discussion about spending cuts.

“We’re discussing the possible virtue of a short-term debt limit extension, so that we have a better chance of getting the Senate and the White House involved in discussions in March,” Mr. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, told reporters.

Mr. Obama has said he will not negotiate over increasing the debt limit. If House Republicans, who lost seats in November and have low approval ratings, take a hard line, it could leave them getting most of the blame for any government default and subsequent economic turmoil.

Though a short-term extension might be seen as a momentary surrender, it could tie the debt topic into discussions about across-the-board military and domestic spending cuts set to hit March 1 and the expiration on March 27 of a stopgap law financing the government. Republicans say the timing could give them more room to fight for cuts.

The two days of party meetings outside this colonial capital were being used by leaders to try to remind conservative lawmakers itching to do battle with Mr. Obama that Democrats increased their numbers in Congress and held on to the presidency in November, and so Republicans might want to tread more carefully.

Debriefing reporters after a morning session, which was closed to the news media, Mr. Ryan said he had warned members that they had to “recognize the realities of the divided government that we have” and urged them to unite behind leadership on the coming fiscal debates.

“Our goal is to make sure our members understand all the deadlines that are coming, all the consequences of those deadlines that are coming, in order so that we can make a better-informed decision about how to move, how to proceed,” he said. “I think what matters most is people have a very clear view of what’s coming so that there are no surprises, and that means setting expectations accordingly, so that we can proceed in a unified basis.”

The struggles of House Republicans have been shown most recently in the emergence of an influential but unofficial group that could be called the Vote No/Hope Yes Caucus.

These are the small but significant number of Republican representatives who, on the recent legislation to head off the broad tax increases and spending cuts mandated by the so-called fiscal cliff, voted no while privately hoping — and at times even lobbying — in favor of the bill’s passage, given the potential harmful economic consequences otherwise.

Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, part of the Republican whip team responsible for marshaling support for legislation, said the current makeup of House Republicans could be divided roughly into a third who voted in favor of the bill because they wanted it to pass, a third who voted against the bill because they wanted it to fail, and a third who voted against the bill but had their fingers crossed that it would pass and avert a fiscal and political calamity.

One lawmaker, Mr. Cole said, told him that while he did not want to vote in favor of the bill, he also did not want to amend it and send it back to the Senate, where it might die and leave House Republicans blamed for tax increases. “So I said, ‘What you’re really telling me is that you want it to pass, but you don’t want to vote for it,’ ” recalled Mr. Cole, who voted yes.

The Vote No/Hope Yes group is perhaps the purest embodiment of the uneasy relationship between politics and pragmatism in the nation’s capital and a group whose very existence must be understood and dealt with as the Republican Party grapples with its future in the wake of the bruising 2012 elections.

Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and once the top spokesman for J. Dennis Hastert, a Republican and former House speaker, described the phenomenon thus: “These are people who are political realists, they’re political pragmatists who want to see progress made in Washington, but are politically constrained from making compromises because they will be challenged in the primary.”

The Jan. 1 tax vote was a case study in gaming out a position on a difficult bill that many Republicans knew had to pass but was also one they preferred not to have their fingerprints on.

Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting from Washington.

View the original article here

Rubio Outlines Elements of His New Immigration Plan

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican who is on a talking tour to publicize his proposals for an immigration overhaul, said on Thursday that tighter enforcement at the borders and in workplaces would be central to his plan, which would also offer legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

In a meeting in New York with reporters and editors of The New York Times, Mr. Rubio said that any broad immigration legislation should create a nationwide exit system to check foreigners out of the country, to confirm that they left before their visas expired. He noted that at least 40 percent of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country came on legal visas but then overstayed.

Mr. Rubio said he would also insist on a nationwide program for employers to verify the legal authorization of new workers, although he did not specify whether he would favor an expansion of an existing federal electronic worker verification program or seek to create a new one.

Mr. Rubio, 41, the conservative son of blue-collar Cuban exiles who won his Senate seat in 2010 with support from the Tea Party, has been shaking up the Republican Party’s immigration politics with his proposals to offer legal status and eventually American citizenship to immigrants here illegally. Since the November elections, many Republican leaders have said the party should find an alternative to the policy of “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants, which turned many Latino voters away from the party’s presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

On Monday, Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, shifted to Mr. Rubio’s approach, endorsing the senator’s principles and saying the two would work together on immigration legislation. On Wednesday, Bill O’Reilly, the conservative media personality, added his endorsement, telling Mr. Rubio he liked his program.

“I think it’s fair,” Mr. O’Reilly said, in a notable change for a commentator who has been fiercely critical of illegal immigration. Since Mr. Rubio started to unveil his principles last Friday, they have also been praised by Grover Norquist, the conservative antitax crusader. He also drew support from some longtime advocates for broad legalization legislation.

One of them, Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, called Mr. Rubio’s proposals “a very welcome and courageous statement from someone who was elected with Tea Party credentials.”

Mr. Rubio, saying immigration would be a top priority for him this year, said he was currently laying out principles and gathering support for them. As a tactical matter, Mr. Rubio is not delving too deeply into the details at this stage.

His plan would give a temporary “nonimmigrant visa” to illegal immigrants, which would allow them to remain and work in the United States. They would have to wait a “significant but reasonable” period of time before they could apply to become legal permanent residents, going to the back of the line in the existing system. Once they became residents, they could go on like other legal immigrants to naturalize as citizens.

“There are millions of people who have applied to enter this country legally,” Mr. Rubio said. “Our message to them cannot be: you should have come illegally because it’s faster and cheaper.”

He acknowledged that major pieces of his plan remain to be worked out. According to current federal visa rosters, most Mexican-born immigrants applying to become permanent residents now face a wait of at least 17 years to receive their document — known as a green card — even if they followed the rules and were approved. Mr. Rubio’s proposal could add seven million more Mexican immigrants to those backlogs. The path to citizenship he proposes for illegal immigrants could be several decades long.

“I don’t have a solution for that question right now,” Mr. Rubio said. He said he would seek to relieve backlogs by speeding up green cards for immigrants already in the legal line, not by creating special pathways for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Rubio’s principles did not sound very different from outlines for an overhaul that President Obama has offered. And the senator, whose star is rising rapidly in his party, chose not to hammer on his differences with the White House. Instead, he said he was open to negotiating because he believed the timing was right to change a failing immigration system. “We just have to get this thing done for once and for all,” Mr. Rubio said.

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

The Next Four Years

The Simpson-Bowles commission sketched out a vision of what a Grand Bargain might look like. Obama and John Boehner tried to craft some semi-Grand Bargains. There was a lot of talk at think tanks of what the best combination of tax reform and entitlement reform might be.

The “fiscal-cliff” fiasco has persuaded many smart people that a Grand Bargain is not going to happen any time soon. A political class that botched the fiscal cliff so badly are not going to be capable of a gigantic deal on complex issues. It’s like going into a day care center and asking a bunch of infants to perform “Swan Lake.”

Polarization is too deep. Special interests are too strong. The negotiators are too rusty. Republicans are not going to give up their vision of a low-tax America. Democrats are not willing to change the current entitlement programs.

So as the president enters his second term, there has to be a new controlling narrative, a new strategy for how to spend the next four years.

As you know, I am an earnest, good-government type, so the strategy I’d prefer might be called Learning to Crawl. It would be based on the notion that you have to learn to crawl before you can run. So over the next four years, legislators should work on a series of realistic, incremental laws that would rebuild the habits of compromise, competence and trust.

We could do some education reform, expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers, encourage responsible drilling for natural gas, maybe establish an infrastructure bank. Political leaders would erode partisan orthodoxies and get back into the habit of passing laws together. Then, down the road, their successors could do the big things.

I may be earnest, but I’m not an idiot. I know there is little chance that today’s partisan players are going to adopt this kind of incremental goo-goo approach. It’s more likely that today’s majority party is going to adopt a different strategy, which you might call Kill the Wounded. It’s more likely that today’s Democrats are going to tell themselves something like this:

“We live at a unique moment. Our opponents, the Republicans, are divided, confused and bleeding. This is not the time to allow them to rebuild their reputation with a series of modest accomplishments. This is the time to kick them when they are down, to win back the House and end the current version of the Republican Party.

“First, we change the narrative. The president ran in 2008 against Washington dysfunction, casting blame on both parties. Over the years, he has migrated to a different narrative: The Republicans are crazy. Washington could be working fine, but the Republicans are crazy.

“At every public appearance, the president should double-down on that theme. The Democratic base already believes it. The media is sympathetic. Independents could be persuaded.

“Then, wedge issues. The president should propose no new measures that might unite Republicans, the way health care did in the first term. Instead, he should raise a series of wedge issues meant to divide Southerners from Midwesterners, the Tea Party/Talk Radio base from the less ideological corporate and managerial class.

“He’s already started with a perfectly designed gun control package, inviting a long battle with the N.R.A. over background checks and magazine clips. That will divide the gun lobby from suburbanites. Then he can re-introduce Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform. That will divide the anti-immigration groups from the business groups (conventional wisdom underestimates how hard it is going to be for Republicans to back comprehensive reforms).

“Then he could invite a series of confrontations with Republicans over things like the debt ceiling — make them look like wackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. Along the way, he could highlight women’s issues, social mobility issues (student loans, community college funding) and pick fights on compassion issues, (hurricane relief) — promoting any small, popular spending programs that Republicans will oppose.

“Twice a month, Democrats should force Republicans to cast an awful vote: either offend mainstream supporters or risk a primary challenge from the right.”

Just as Senator Mitch McConnell made defeating President Obama his main political objective, Democrats seem likely to make winning back the House their primary political objective. Experts are divided on how plausible this is, but the G.O.P. is unpopular and the opportunity is there.

This isn’t the Washington I want to cover, but it’s the most likely one. How will Republicans respond to this onslaught? I have no idea.

View the original article here

At Republican Retreat, Ryan Urges Unity on Fiscal Issues

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — As House Republicans hunkered down here for a two-day retreat to discuss the future of their conference, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin warned members that they had to “recognize the realities of the divided government that we have” and urged members to unite behind leadership on the coming fiscal debates.

Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the budget committee, told reporters that he thought some of the divisiveness that had plagued House Republicans under the leadership of Speaker John A. Boehner would most likely subside once members understand the coming battles and challenges.

“I think what matters most is people have a very clear view of what’s coming so that there are no surprises, and that means setting expectations accordingly, so that we can proceed in a unified basis,” Mr. Ryan said. “And the reason we’re doing this kind of facilitation right now is we want every member to understand all of the issues and all of the consequences, so that we can come together with consensus on a plan and move forward and proceed.”

Referring to the end of the previous Congress, which left the House, the Senate and the White House racing against a deadline to pass legislation to offset across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts needed to avert a financial crisis, he added, “We have the time to do that, whereas before it was a little more rushed, and we didn’t have the time.”

The former vice presidential candidate has maintained a low profile since returning to Congress, but he surprised some when he voted with Mr. Boehner on the tax deal devised by the White House and Senate Republicans to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.

Mr. Ryan also signaled that his conference might be flexible when it comes to the coming debate about the debt limit.

“We’re discussing the possible virtue of a short-term debt limit extension so that we have a better chance of getting the Senate and White House involved in discussions in March,” he said.

But reining in outsize spending and a soaring deficit still remains a top Republican priority, Mr. Ryan emphasized.

“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,” he said. “We think the worst thing for the economy is to move past these events that are occurring with no progress made on the debt and deficits.”

He added: “We know we have a debt crisis coming. This is not an ‘if’ question, it’s a ‘when’ question.”

View the original article here

Truman and Obama

My Sunday column on President Obama’s foreign policy synthesis (as manifested in the nominations of Chuck Hagel and John Brennan) argued that he presently “enjoys more trust — and with it, more latitude — on foreign policy than any Democrat since Harry Truman.” Daniel Larison calls this invocation of Truman a “strange anachronism,” and elaborates:

It was Truman’s foreign policy mistakes, both perceived and real, that helped the Republicans to end their two decades out of power and made the Republicans a credible alternative for governing for the first time since the 1920s. Truman’s expansion of containment doctrine into a policy to be pursued globally had long-lasting, pernicious effects on U.S. foreign policy that would last until the end of the Cold War. Truman left office with approval ratings worse than the lowest ratings of George W. Bush, and rightly so. It was only much later that Truman’s reputation was rehabilitated …

The point here is that Truman’s last years in office didn’t include his being widely trusted on foreign policy, but rather just the opposite.

Quite so! But Obama isn’t in his last years in office yet, and I had in mind the Truman of 1948 rather than the Truman of 1952 — the pre-Korean War Truman, that is, whose early Cold War strategy enjoyed strong bipartisan support, to the frustration of more left-wing figures like Henry Wallace and the bafflement of his Republican opponents. The parallels are imperfect, but there are interesting echoes of the divergent Republican responses to Truman’s foreign policy positioning — from the Arthur Vandenbergs who lent it a bipartisan sheen, to the rollback advocates who decided that containment amounted to appeasement, to the old guard non-interventionists who opposed the new Cold War architecture outright — in the ways that different kinds of Republicans, from realists to neoconservatives to non-interventionists, have struggled to figure out what to say about Obama’s approach to war and peace. (Robert Gates or Colin Powell or Chuck Hagel might be Vandenberg in this analogy, John McCain might be John Foster Dulles, and Rand Paul, I suppose, would play the part of Robert Taft.) And there are parallels, too, between the role foreign policy played in the 1948 campaign — as a secondary issue that nonetheless probably helped Truman’s cause, mostly because his opponent wasn’t sure when to agree with the incumbent and when to out-hawk him — and the role it played in the election season we’ve just experienced. (In this area, as in others, the Tom Dewey-as-Mitt Romney analogy pretty much writes itself.)

I should have been clearer about which phase of the Truman era I had in mind, and while I’m more sympathetic to his record than Larison, I agree that his once-underrated administration has been overrated by his subsequent rehabilitators. But for a time, Truman did occupy the foreign policy center in a way that that few Democrats have managed since. And the fact that his credibility crumbled in his second term, when our push to reunify Korea turned into a war with Mao’s China, dovetails with my column’s larger point — which was that Obama’s foreign policy is still a work in progress, and that the final judgment on his record will probably look very different after another four years of watching his strategic choices play themselves out.

View the original article here

Uncertainty must end for small firms

During the national election cycle, the discussion around small businesses was more substantial than previous years -- a huge benefit for Arizona because our local economy is fueled by entrepreneurs.

With job creation as one of the central election issues, each candidate fully recognized the power of small businesses and focused a large part of his messaging accordingly.

Although President Barack Obama's campaign promises might have been more generous than other Democratic candidates in the recent past, many of us agree that the Republican Party's proposals of job-creating legislation were much more appealing to the small-business owner.

After months of being energized by the Republican ticket's promises for small-business owners, the election results left many of us scratching our heads and wondering, "What's next for small businesses?"

This question is especially relevant in Arizona, where entrepreneurship is an integral part of our state's business DNA. Arizona has a remarkably low number of Fortune 500 companies. We employ some of the smallest numbers of state and local government employees compared with the other 49 states, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. We continue to top national rankings relating to entrepreneurship in media outlets like Forbes magazine and CNN.

Simply put, Arizona's small businesses create a substantial amount of jobs and are the backbone of our local economy. Small businesses will also be the driver of national economic growth.

Because Arizona is so reliant on the success of small businesses -- Forbes recognized us as the No. 1 most entrepreneurial state, with a start-up rate of an impressive 520 per 1,000 residents -- it is important to recognize that the following are just a few of the many issues that will impact entrepreneurs and ultimately our local community:

Health-care reform. Possibly the biggest question mark for business owners is how will health-care reform impact their companies. While the answer to this is still unknown, many are anticipating increases in health-care costs and increases in regulations (which adds costs) and questioning what the impact will be on our ability to remain competitive.

Fiscal uncertainty. Small-business owners are still waiting to see what the fallout may be from the "fiscal cliff" discussions at the end of 2012 and the yet to be decided government spending-cut decisions that were extended to the end of February. Investors still are on standby waiting to see the implications. This continued uncertainty is a major hindrance to making decisions on adding jobs, which hurts the overall economy.

Access to capital. Since 2008, lack of financing and access to capital has been a continual struggle. Our nation's leaders have the opportunity to make financing easier for small businesses by helping banks reach pre-recession lending to jump-start our economy.

It is important that we hold our president to campaign promises made to small-business owners. I hope, post-election, that he moves beyond the nation-dividing rhetoric about some people not paying their fair share and realizes that the very people he is criticizing, small-business entrepreneurs, are the ones working hard everyday to hire people and grow the economy. We are past the time to place blame. We now must come together and face the problems that face us.

I hope the conversation continues, both at the local and national level, about how small businesses can push us into economic prosperity.

Despite what may or may not happen on the national level as a result of the election, Arizonans have the opportunity to protect our reputation as an entrepreneurial leader.

Entrepreneurs can accomplish this by working with one another to share successes and lessons learned, provide different perspectives and work toward solutions.

David Anderson is the communications chairman for the Arizona chapter of Entrepreneurs' Organization, a professional group that includes Arizona's most successful entrepreneurs. He also is managing partner and CEO of Off Madison Ave + SpinSix, a marketing and communications firm in Phoenix.

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

The Latest in Anti-Politics

In The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns every Wednesday.

Gail Collins: David, the House Republicans are going off for their annual retreat this week. As a sign of my good intentions, I am not going to make any jokes involving Custer and Little Bighorn.

I do want to know where you think they’ll be headed once they return from their days of contemplation. Backward? Forward? Off the political cliff?

David Brooks: I don’t think they know. There are a bunch of Republicans who think we’re headed toward a fiscal catastrophe (they’re right), that the problem is mostly spending (right again) and that therefore they should stop the normal Washington shenanigans and provoke a budget confrontation (wrong).

Gail: When it comes to political games, this debt ceiling thing is like playing chicken on the railroad tracks. While wearing snowshoes.

David: The debt ceiling is one of those issues that invite maximum hypocrisy on both sides. As you know, Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 when Bush was president on the grounds that our $248 billion annual deficit was ruinously high.  Obama gave some very persuasive speeches on this, as Byron York is reporting in The Washington Examiner.

Now Democrats hold the White House so Republicans are playing that game. The first thing that’s different is that Republicans are just a lot more strident about provoking a showdown. Second, it’s interesting how anti-political they are. Arguments from pollsters and their leadership that this will end up hurting their party have no effect, and maybe even a negative effect.

We say we want people who ignore the polls and are willing to take a stand on principle. Here it is.

Gail: If we’re talking about principled but politically suicidal leaps, I can fantasize one that’s a lot more positive: At the end of the retreat, John Boehner comes out and says that the Republican House members have decided to raise the debt ceiling, with no side demands, because everybody knows that if you borrow money, you have to pay it back.

I’m shocked there’s any question about that. This is the party that keeps saying government is just like a family and families can’t spend more than their income. I’m betting the public also believes that if a family borrows money, it’s morally obligated to pay it back. Even if the family now regrets the purchase of a 60-inch flat screen TV.

David: Here’s the thing. The last time the Republicans threatened a big debt ceiling fight, it worked. They got at least a little spending restraint.

Gail: And the president got a good lesson in not negotiating on the debt ceiling.

David: Here’s the other thing: A few weeks ago, the White House was telling everyone that there was no way they were going to agree to a fiscal cliff deal unless it took the debt ceiling fight off the table. Well, they folded on that too.

It’s hard for those of us who worry about the solvency of the government to argue against success.

Gail: I don’t disagree that the president folded on both occasions. Which is why I’m glad he doesn’t seem tempted now.

David:  I just wish the president would actually submit more than one budget on time. I wish the Senate would actually pass a budget (it hasn’t in years). That way we could get back to some normal constitutional budget procedure.

Gail: Here’s what I wish: At the end of the retreat — you’ll note that I have a lot of fantasies about this particular occasion — Boehner comes out and says that this year, the House is going to vote on the legislation that comes before it, and let the majority rule.

As you know, Boehner’s current rule is that bills only come to a vote when a majority of Republicans support them. He had to abandon it during the fiscal cliff crisis and then again on Tuesday for Sandy relief. But he’s given no indication that he’ll drop the rule during the normal course of business.

This so-called majority of the majority rule is why the House never took up the Senate bill to keep the Postal Service out of insolvency last year. It’s why Boehner couldn’t bring up a farm reform bill that came out of his own Republican-dominated Agriculture Committee.

So, break the stalemate. Let bills come up as they arrive from committees and from the Senate. Count the votes. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.

David: As I say, the budget is the single biggest piece of legislation Congress entertains. If the Senate can’t pass one of those it’s hard for me to exclusively blame the House for being dysfunctional. At least the House has passed a budget.

Gail: The House doesn’t have the filibuster. But obviously I’m not going to argue that the Senate majority is blameless. Plenty of dysfunction to go around.

David: That said, I do agree that this majority of the majority business is stupid. It means you can never have unorthodox coalitions around anything. The habits of bipartisanship on anything get lost.

Gail: The Republicans have certainly been getting a lot of bad press lately. Tell me, do you agree with Colin Powell that there’s a “dark vein of intolerance” in the party now?

David: Not really. I’ll let you in on a little secret. I go to a lot of all-Republican gatherings and a lot of all-Democratic gatherings. I hear more intolerance from the all-Democrats. They are more contemptuous of people unlike them. Or, to be more precise, they are more uncomprehending about the fact that somebody could actually disagree with them.

Gail: The thing that freaks me out most is the regional divide we’re seeing. The Republicans get all their power from the former Confederate states and what I think of as the Empty Places – mainly the Great Plains. The Democrats get theirs from the two coasts and the industrial middle.

I appreciate the irritation the House Republicans felt at the big spending in the post-Sandy storm relief package, but that bill would never, ever have been stalled if the storm had flattened Montana or South Carolina.

David: Really? I seem to recall Bush going down late to New Orleans post-Katrina and giving a speech about how to help the storm-ravaged areas, including, notably, a lot of places like Mississippi. The House Republicans totally balked at those ideas, too. I’m sure the fact that Sandy hit the Northeast didn’t help, but the aversion to spending is reasonably pervasive, I’d say. Not always thought through, but pervasive.

Gail: Well, the only positive note I can end on when it comes to the House Republicans is this: they really do make the House Democrats look good. I hope they have a good retreat. Do you think there will be yoga?

David: Pilates. They need to work on their cores.

View the original article here

Fiscal compromise and broken promises

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON In a town of broken politics, the path to compromise is littered with broken promises. It's called governing.

The rush to avoid economic calamity on Jan. 1 has President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner out to cut a deal and sell it to their parties. The goal is a middle ground that would at least halt looming tax increases on virtually everyone, if not yield a far-reaching bargain to stabilize the nation's debt.

Yet, the political compromise the public wants is smashing into another political force -- the so-called iron-clad promises made to that same voting public.

Days after he won a second term, a beaming Obama reminded everyone about a defining promise of his re-election: The wealthy must pay more to help shrink the nation's ballooning debt. He insisted he would not go for a deal in which families making more than $250,000 are "not asked to pay a dime more in taxes."

Except now he would do that.

To get a fiscal deal with Republicans, Obama raised his bottom line to people making $400,000 or more. He is also now willing to raise taxes on the middle class by agreeing to let a payroll tax cut expire -- and by accepting a new inflation index that would, in addition to shrinking yearly increases for Social Security beneficiaries, push people into higher tax brackets.

Instead of holding firm on his oft-repeated pledge to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of taxpayers, Obama's plan would hit less than the top 1 percent.

And then there's Boehner.

He said Republicans were willing to consider tax revenue, but not by raising tax rates on anyone. "Instead of raising tax rates on the American people and accepting the damage it will do to our economy, let's start to actually solve the problem," Boehner said after the election.

And now? Boehner is willing to let tax rates go up on Jan. 1, as long as it is only on people making over $1 million and that other parts of the deal fall into place. The part about damage to the economy for raising taxes on anyone, including the richest people, has disappeared.

In the hardest of political times, the hardest of lines tend to fall away.

"That's the reality of Washington. You don't get exactly what you want, but you do it for the benefit of the country," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president of Third Way, a think tank that advocates for the middle ground in American politics.

The group's surveys find what so many polls have shown -- people want Democrats and Republicans to compromise. They want Washington to work.

Obama and Boehner know this. They are figuring out how far they can go without alienating voters or putting together a deal that has no chance of passing.

And they are bending or breaking promises, provided they can justify the broader result and claim they are not abandoning their principles.

The president can still say he would be extracting more tax revenue from the rich while preserving tax rates on families making $250,000 or less.

The White House dismissed the broken-promise label. Obama "has demonstrated a willingness to move towards the Republicans in order to achieve a deal," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

Boehner is faced with tax rates going up on everyone regardless on Jan. 1. So by shifting his stand on tax rates, he is at least poised to get something out of it, including deeper spending cuts and a commitment to tax reform in 2013.

If a deal comes together.

Meanwhile, both leaders have to hold off the flanks of their parties.

Rep. Jim Jordan, of Ohio, the outgoing chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said Boehner's plan crosses a dangerous line by enacting higher tax rates. "I think it's a mistake for the Republican Party, so that's what I think a lot of members are struggling with," Jordan said.

Liberal groups denounced the White House's inclusion of a different inflation index for benefit programs like Social Security that would cut average retiree benefits. It was the White House, they point out, that suggested Social Security should not be included in the negotiations because it does not drive up the federal deficit.

"He's breaking a pledge that he would not cut benefits," said Eric Kingson, founding co-director of Social Security Works and a co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. "You can change the language, but people aren't fools. It's a cut."

The White House said any changes would include protections for the most vulnerable beneficiaries.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 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

Stanton was right to criticize SB 1070 fiasco

(PNI) Regarding "Stanton should explain SB 1070 remark" (Opinions, Saturday):

The letter writer feigns surprise that Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton did not want to be associated with Senate Bill 1070.

The mayor at a recent meeting had asked that event planners not hold that law "against the rest of us," who he pointed out are "normal." The writer asks the mayor to explain "what the hell" he meant by those remarks.

Let me try.

That law was, for the most part, declared unconstitutional by several courts. It damaged the Republican Party's standing with Latino voters.

And it brought shame and ridicule upon the state that the letter writer professes to love so much.

Not wanting to be associated with such a fiasco sounds pretty "normal" to me.

-- Michael Salcido,

Phoenix

Enough handgun blather

Laurie Roberts' column Sunday, "Kristi's suicide a story of gun laws' failure," is another sad example of the media's righteous single-mindedness on this important topic.

So, gun laws, the police, the court system and numerous others are to blame that a severely depressed woman killed herself with a handgun.

Really?

As a father, my heart truly goes out to Kristi's parents. It really does.

That said, this tragic story isn't about a "failure" of gun laws.

Does any rational person doubt for one minute that this person would not have taken her life some other way had she not had a gun?

Maybe we should ban buses because she might have stepped in front of one. Sometimes, just sometimes, people are responsible for their own irrational actions.

Surmising that Kristi would still be with us today if we had no guns around is both naive and blatantly untrue.

Perhaps we wouldn't have obesity in this country if they would just stop manufacturing forks.

If the media really want a reasonable discussion about gun control, stop publishing doggerel like this.

Enough already!

-- Thomas J. Salerno,

Phoenix

No school is totally safe

Regarding "A plan to protect schools" (Opinions, Dec. 31):

The letter writer's suggestions may seem to have some merit -- armed guards, volunteers, classroom doors made of steel, etc. However, I have one question: What happens when the kids go out for recess/lunch and the perpetrator is but a short distance away? It would be like shooting ducks in a pond.

We can do many things and spend a lot of money doing the above. But if the evil wish to do harm, they will succeed. We might make it a bit more difficult, but they will succeed, at least some of them.

If you do away with guns, knives will then be the weapon of choice, along with baseball bats, cars, acid, anthrax in envelopes, etc. Those who are determined to do harm, will.

It's a terrible shame, but that's life, folks, and there's not much more that can be done unless you wish to lock yourselves up in a cave and spend your life scratching for whatever the land provides.

Good luck doing that.

--Barbara Woltz, Surprise

Say prayer for Newtown

So, I am watching the news and see all the stuff people are sending to Newtown, Conn. What happened is beyond sad, but no matter how many gifts you send, it can't replace what they lost.

Maybe we should think of sending those gifts to someone who lost similar things. I think the people in Connecticut would agree. And use your prayers for Newtown.

--Nick Conant, Humboldt

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

Christie a blueprint for GOP turnabout

WASHINGTON

A pair of polls out this week indicate the dire state the Republican Party finds itself in -- and a way out of the wilderness, should Republicans choose to take it.

Poll No. 1: Rasmussen Reports found that views of the "tea party" -- the wing of Republicanism that dominates party primaries and therefore the congressional Republican caucuses -- at a new low. Only 8 percent of likely voters considered themselves tea-party members, down from 24 percent in 2010. According to Rasmussen (which tends to have a pro-Republican bias), unfavorable views of the movement topped favorable views, 49 percent to 30 percent.

Poll No. 2: Fairleigh Dickinson University found that 73 percent of New Jersey voters approved of the job their Republican governor, Chris Christie, is doing -- near his all-time high. Even 62 percent of Democrats approve of Christie, as well as 69 percent of racial minorities and 70 percent of women. The top would-be challenger to Christie in November's gubernatorial election is trailing him by 33 percentage points.

So grim are things for the Democrats in heavily Democratic New Jersey that the state Senate president, Democrat Stephen Sweeney, apologized Monday after saying Christie wished for Hurricane Sandy to hit New Jersey. "I guess he prayed a lot and got lucky a storm came," Sweeney had said.

Certainly, the storm -- and, more importantly, Christie's forceful response -- boosted the governor's standing. But the tea party's record lows and Christie's record highs tell a larger story: Americans are crying out for an end to ideological warfare.

That has developed into Christie's signature in New Jersey. He began his term promising tax cuts and fighting with the teachers union over tenure, pay and education reforms, but he now preaches reconciliation -- a recurring theme in his State of the State address Tuesday.

"Now, we've had our fights," he told state legislators. "We have stuck to our principles. But we have established a governing model for America that shows that, even with heartfelt beliefs, bipartisan compromise is possible. … Maybe the folks in Washington, in both parties, could learn something from our record here."

Christie, his eye on a possible 2016 presidential run, overstates that record, both in terms of economic progress and in terms of partisan cooperation. But his message is undoubtedly a winning one. More than three-quarters of Americans believe that politics in Washington is causing "serious harm to the United States," according to a new Gallup poll -- and they are correct to think so.

Christie lent his powerful voice to that sentiment last week when he condemned as "disgusting" the House Republicans' decision not to take up a $60billion Hurricane Sandy recovery bill because tea-party lawmakers considered it wasteful. "That's why people hate Washington," Christie said at the time, helping force House Speaker John Boehner to reconsider.

It was just the latest of Christie's many breaks with tea-party orthodoxy. Just before the election, his effusive praise of President Barack Obama's "outstanding" response to Sandy earned him condemnation.

He unnerved fiscal conservatives by saying that the hurricane recovery would probably require higher taxes, because "there's no magic money tree." He came out against the National Rifle Association's plan to have gun-wielding guards in schools, saying, "You don't want to make this an armed camp for kids."

Earlier, after conservatives criticized his appointment of a Muslim judge, he took on these "bigots" for their "gaze of intolerance." And on immigration, he called for an "orderly process" to legalize undocumented immigrants and he criticized those who "demagogue."

Certainly, Christie is no liberal, but his State of the State speech was full of policy prescriptions that conservatives might label big government: "We've requested the federal government to pay 100 percent of the costs of the significant debris removal. … We have secured $20million from the Federal Highway Administration. … We have worked with the Small Business Administration to secure nearly $189million in loans."

Christie also bragged about "implementing the toughest fertilizer law in America," fighting insurers' "excessive deductibles" and "investing the largest amount of state aid to education in New Jersey history." He said "both Republicans and Democrats" would make sure the state got its full federal payout for the storm.

"You see," he told the legislators, "some things are above politics."

It's a lesson that could help the national Republican Party loosen the tea party's death grip.

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

Arizona will lose 'a real workhorse'

Jon Kyl's 26-year career on Capitol Hill officially ends this week, and Arizona will lose an influential and hardworking senator whose legacy, particularly on water policy, could help shape the state for decades.

Jon Kyl: Retiring after 26 years in D.C.

Age: 70.

Party: Republican.

Family: Wife, Caryll; two grown children, Kristine Kyl Gavin, who lives in the Washington, D.C., area, and John Kyl, who lives in Phoenix.

Public office:U.S. senator since 1995. Elected GOP whip in December 2007. Served in U.S. House of Representatives from 1987 to 1995.

Legislative accomplishments: Sat on the influential Senate Judiciary and Finance committees. Was a former chairman of the Senate's anti-terrorism subcommittee and was recognized as a U.S. counterterrorism expert. Co-authored the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Negotiated and shepherded through Congress several landmark water settlements.

Professional background: Lawyer at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon in Phoenix. Former chairman of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.

Education: Bachelor's degree in political science and law degree from the University of Arizona.

Notable: Recognized by Time magazine in 2010 as one of the 100 "people who most affect our world." He appeared in the "Leaders" section of the annual "Time 100" list, with President Barack Obama and other well-known political figures. In 2006, Time named him one of the 10 best senators.

Kyl, 70, spent 18 years in the U.S. Senate and eight years before that in the U.S. House, rising from a low-profile, rank-and-file Republican to become Arizona's highest-ranking lawmaker in Washington in decades. He decided not to seek a fourth Senate term, and at 10 a.m. Arizona time on Thursday, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., will become the state's 11th senator.

Kyl served with five presidents, and his tenure spanned the impeachment and Senate trial of President Bill Clinton, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In December 2007, his GOP colleagues elected him to the job of minority whip, making him the No. 2 Senate Republican leader and boosting Arizona's political clout.

But Kyl also quietly earned a reputation as the go-to guy in Washington for Arizona issues. As Sen. John McCain, the state's senior senator, dominated the national limelight as a two-time Republican presidential candidate, Kyl tackled the less glamorous but often vitally important issues and projects around Arizona.

A one-time practicing attorney specializing in water law, Kyl negotiated and ushered multiple landmark Arizona water-rights settlements through Congress. The water deals resolved legal entanglements between the federal government and Indian communities in Arizona that stretched back decades.

"I can't tell you how many people would say, 'When I really need something done, I go to Jon Kyl,'" said Bruce Merrill, a veteran Arizona political scientist who has followed Kyl's political career from his first House race in 1986. "I put Jon Kyl in the same status that I put Barry Goldwater in terms of what he's done for the state. This guy was a real workhorse for Arizona."

Kyl mastered the Senate process.

He was credited in 1999 with using under-the-radar tactics to orchestrate the Senate defeat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty sought by Clinton. In naming Kyl one of "America's 10 Best Senators," Time in 2006 dubbed him "The Operator" and hailed his expertise at legislative "subterfuge."

And although his partisan credentials were never in doubt -- Democratic critics slammed him as obstructionist during President Barack Obama's first term -- Kyl at times also could reach across the aisle. He co-sponsored a 2007 bipartisan comprehensive immigration-reform bill with the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that spurred a backlash against Kyl from the right. He collaborated with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on crime-victim legislation and other issues. While in the House in the early 1990s, Kyl helped bring attention to the House banking scandal that hurt several of his fellow lawmakers, including then-Rep. Jay Rhodes, R-Ariz.

"Senator Jon Kyl served the people of Arizona with distinction," former President George W. Bush said in a written statement to The Arizona Republic. "He is a highly intelligent man who was well-briefed on the key issues of our time. He earned respect not only in the Senate, but in the White House during my Presidency."

Kyl wasn't prone to grandstanding, and he figured out early on that much can be accomplished quietly, outside the media spotlight and especially if taking credit isn't a priority. Kyl is the son of a former Iowa congressman and never had any interest in running for anything but federal office. He immersed himself in issues, big and small, and prided himself on preparation, becoming known as one of the most knowledgeable lawmakers in the chamber.

Once described by The Republic as having "the sober-minded earnestness of a Presbyterian minister," he comes across as serious and professorial. Kyl is a stickler for details and facts and can be prickly if he believes his integrity has been impugned. While he became a man of the Senate, he never became a creature of Washington, returning most weekends to Arizona, where his family has a cabin in Greer.

There was never a sense that Kyl would say something in Washington that he wouldn't say in Tucson or Kingman.

Kyl also never begrudged the better-known McCain for his spot on the national and international stage, saying they each served their state in different ways. He hinted at how he viewed the relationship when on election night in November, he referred to Flake as "another wingman" for McCain.

A national leader

In his Dec. 19 farewell remarks on the Senate floor, Kyl characterized his political career as an effort to maximize personal freedom through pro-growth economics, social values and national security that reflected a "strong and sovereign America."

"I am deeply honored to have served for 18 years as Arizona's 10th senator, and for four terms in the House of Representatives before that," Kyl said. "Now, it's time to move on."

Kyl is tight-lipped on his intentions, but it's widely believed he will stay involved with the shaping of public policy in some way. He has donated his official papers to the University of Arizona, his alma mater. He doubts he will write a memoir and emphatically says he is through with running for public office.

"I want to continue to serve in ways that, in the private sector, I can make a contribution to public policy," Kyl said in an interview with The Republic. "Probably some politics. If I can serve in an advisory and counselor role, I certainly want to do that. And I very much want to have a lot to do here in Arizona even though I will probably also be doing some things in Washington."

Kyl's exit will result in a loss of stature for Arizona. Only three other Arizonans have ascended to the top echelon of Senate or House leadership: Sen. Ernest McFarland, a Democrat who was Senate majority leader from 1951 to 1953; Sen. Carl Hayden, a seven-term Democrat who was Senate president pro tempore, and third in line to the presidency, from 1957 to 1969; and Rep. John Rhodes, a Republican who was House minority leader from 1973 to 1981. Others took different paths to national notoriety. Former Rep. Stewart Udall, D-Ariz., was secretary of the Interior in President John F. Kennedy's and President Lyndon Johnson's administrations, while Goldwater and McCain, respectively, won the Republican Party's nomination for president in 1964 and 2008. Rep. Morris Udall, D-Ariz., also made an unsuccessful 1976 bid for the White House.

"He ranks right up there with the very, very best that we have ever had," McCain said of Kyl.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called Kyl "an absolutely invaluable partner" whose "good judgment" and cooperation will be missed by the Senate GOP caucus.

"There are two things I think you need to know about Jon Kyl before you begin any discussion," McConnell told The Republic. "Number 1, he's absolutely brilliant, and, Number 2, he knows how to play team ball. Being in a legislative body is a team sport, but there's not much of a payoff for it because (the media is) always looking for someone who is not playing team ball."

When Kyl spoke, people actually listened, something not true of every senator, McConnell said.

"To be effective in a group with a bunch of class-president types requires a particular skill, and he has that in great abundance," McConnell said. "And whatever he chooses to do next, I'm sure he will be conspicuously successful with that as well."

The respect for Kyl extends to the other side of the aisle.

Feinstein, the California Democrat, said she enjoyed working with Kyl, whom she characterized as "a dedicated public servant," particularly on crime victims' rights. They also collaborated over the years on border-security and anti-terrorism issues.

"Because of our work together on the Crime Victims' Rights Act, victims of violent crimes are now afforded many critical protections, such as the right to restitution and the right to make statements in court," Feinstein told The Republic. "Senator Kyl's tireless work on victims' rights provides a great insight into his character."

Even before he began climbing the rungs of Senate leadership, Kyl was making a name for himself among the Washington elite.

In 2000, Kyl was interviewed as a possible vice-presidential running mate for Bush, who was a Texas governor. Kyl said his VP vetting got "pretty far" before Dick Cheney, who led the search, decided to take the job himself.

"I would have loved to have been selected, but I'm glad Dick selected himself," Kyl said.

In a telephone interview with The Republic, Cheney said he could not confirm the details of the 2000 running-mate search because the process was confidential, but he did stress the high regard in which he holds Kyl, whom he got to know when both served in the House, and said he considers him a personal friend.

"I'd have been very happy with Jon Kyl as the president of the United States," Cheney said. "I think he was that good."

Arizona legacy: Water

Kyl will be remembered nationally as a GOP leader known for his conservative posture on national security, including his strong support for missile defense and his sharp criticism of those who leak classified information, as well as judicial issues. But his work forging complicated Indian water-rights settlements could cement his long-term reputation in his home state.

Kyl, a water-law expert who as an attorney argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, helped negotiate multiple agreements to resolve decades of legal entanglements and disputes between the federal government and Arizona's Indian communities, including the 15-years-in-the-making 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act.

He retires from the Senate leaving a major water settlement involving the Navajo and Hopi tribes unfinished.

"We still had one big one that we didn't get done, but we did a lot of the work on it and the parties had agreed to it, it's just that they didn't want to go forward with the legislation to effect it," Kyl said. "So that's a disappointment, and yet all of the preceding ones were important to our state."

Generally speaking, Kyl said, he believes his legacy won't come into focus for some time, and he declined to speculate how history might remember him. But he acknowledged that his work on the water settlements, as well as public-land use and national forests, will resonate most with his constituents.

Jack August Jr., an Arizona political historian and authority on the state's political fights over water, said Kyl's emphasis on the state's water future was in the tradition of Hayden, the long-serving senator known as the father of the Central Arizona Project, the 336-mile network of canals and pumping stations that delivers Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson.

"Kyl was a warrior for the conservative movement, but at the same time he's one of our great water senators, like Carl Hayden," said August, author of the 1998 book "Vision in the Desert: Carl Hayden and Hydropolitics in the American Southwest." "I would put him right there. He's a brilliant guy. I admire him as a historian."

McCain said Kyl's contributions to the Indian water settlements shouldn't be underestimated.

"His achievements on these water-rights agreements with our Native Americans are landmark and have historic implications," McCain said. "He has been indispensable, and obviously unique because he had all this background as a water-rights lawyer. They are the most complex issues that you could ever address. Out of 100 senators in the United States Senate, he is the only one who has that kind of capability and credibility."

Kyl does not dispute that of the two senators, he did much of the heavy-lifting when it came to Arizona issues, saying his relationship with McCain "worked out fine." He noted that McCain ran for president in 2000 prior to securing the nomination on his second try in 2008, so naturally some of the Arizona-specific duties would fall to him. And despite being the state's senior senator, McCain never once pulled rank, Kyl said.

"I think Arizona got its money's worth," Kyl said. "You had two different kinds of senators, and we complemented each other to a large extent."

Critics, controversies

Arizona Democrats have long argued that Kyl's conservatism is out of step with the changing demographics of the state, which they argue is getting more moderate.

While he never became as well-known as a foe of earmarks as McCain or Flake, Kyl's rejection of pork-barrel politics drew criticism from those who believe that senators and representatives should try to secure as much federal funding for home-state projects as they can. Kyl's vote to convict Clinton in his 1999 Senate impeachment trial and opposition to Obama's 2010 health-care overhaul also won him no fans among Democrats.

But some also give Kyl his due.

Paul Eckerstrom, a former Pima County Democratic Party chairman, disagrees with Kyl on many issues and is especially bothered by Kyl's opposition to allowing the government to negotiate drug prices as part of the Medicare Part D program. But he said he was impressed by Kyl on water issues. "I always thought he was very smart, and a formidable political opponent because of that," Eckerstrom said.

Former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, the Democrat whom Kyl succeeded, said that despite philosophical differences on policy, he has always considered Kyl a gentleman. "I've seen him work very well with people and not be a showoff or anything like that," said DeConcini, who served from 1977 to 1995. "He's a smart, smart guy."

For all of his recognition as one of the more cerebral senators, a 2011 gaffe about Planned Parenthood helped define Kyl negatively on social-media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

After Kyl misspoke on the Senate floor by saying abortions made up 90 percent of Planned Parenthood's services -- the correct figure is 3 percent -- Ryan Patmintra, his then-Washington-based press secretary, made things worse by telling CNN that Kyl's comment "was not intended to be a factual statement." That nonsensical response, which Patmintra said Kyl neither saw nor approved, entered the national lexicon after going viral. Television comedians and Democrats roundly mocked the phrase.

In addition to the unfinished business of the Navajo-Hopi water settlement and a land swap that could have resulted in a massive new copper mine near Superior, Kyl acknowledges some regrets, such as how the Iraq war, which he supported, turned out.

"I don't regret the positions that I have taken, but I do wish things had worked out differently than they did," he said.

But, overall, he is proud of the way he represented Arizonans for more than two decades.

"What an honor," Kyl said in summing up. "It all comes to an end now, but in politics nothing is ever over. It's a continuing battle of ideas, so you can't put yourself in the position of the indispensable person. It goes on after you, and I'm just happy to have had the opportunity to serve."

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