The Show for April 20, 2026: Quitting Congress to run for governor, dwindling AZ budget and more

The top two candidates in the Republican primary for Arizona governor are both current congressmen. We’ll hear a about the national trend of quitting Congress to run for governor. Plus, what the state’s fiscal situation looks like as budget talks start to move forward.

Transcript

MARK BRODIE: Hi, I'm Mark Brodie, co-host of The Show, an original production from KJZZ. Every weekday, we bring you the latest news and culture from across the state. You can find much more at theshow.kjzz.org. Here’s today’s episode.

LAUREN GILGER: Good morning and welcome to The Show here on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Lauren Gilger.

MARK BRODIE: And I’m Mark Brodie. Coming up, why state lawmakers and the governor may have less money to spend in the new state budget than they thought.

LAUREN GILGER: And there are a whole lot of members of Congress leaving this year with their eyes on governorships.

MARK BRODIE: But first, housing has been a big issue of discussion and debate at the state Capitol over the past few years, and lawmakers are expected to consider a proposal this week that’s been front and center in many of those conversations. With me to talk more about the upcoming week at 1700 West Washington is Howie Fischer of Capital Media Services. Howie, let’s start with an issue that’s been debated for the past few years; it’s become known as the Starter Homes Act. Basically trying to encourage developers to build less expensive homes. What is in this bill and how is it different from years past?

HOWIE FISCHER: Well, as you point out, there has been a long effort by lawmakers to figure out how to make homes more affordable. Now remember they passed in the past accessory dwelling units, encouraging people to build little casitas on the side of the house. They have this middle housing bill to encourage more duplexes and triplexes in the downtown area. They’ve even told cities you have to speed up development in terms of approval and all that. One of the things in this bill would say cities can’t require garages, paved driveways, backyard patios or even fencing between new homes or even main streets. You couldn’t have specific exterior designs or specific exterior lighting, roof pitches or floor plans, or, you know, even requiring they be red tile versus, you know, shingles or things like that. And then the other thing that would be gone are requirements for developers to put in things like neighborhood parks, common areas that would require an HOA, a homeowner association. So it’s pretty comprehensive, although it’s a little less than what they’ve tried to get through before.

MARK BRODIE: Now Howie, in past years housing bills including this one have had both bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Are we seeing that again this year with this bill?

HOWIE FISCHER: Well we are, definitely. There are a lot of folks who are saying we need affordable housing. And a lot of them are Democrats who sometimes are a little hesitant to be telling cities what to do. I mean you’ve got people like Analise Ortiz who has said over and over again, you know, I hope to be able to own a home someday. And then there’s the other piece of the concern, which is, will this really make housing more affordable or just make more profits for developers who will continue to charge half-million dollars and they’ll just pocket the difference? There is nothing that says you will reduce the prices.

MARK BRODIE: Interesting. So Howie, there’s another bill, another issue that seems to come up year after year, and this one relates to how cities and towns have to advertise notices for things and whether they have to buy those ads in local newspapers or if they can publish them online.

HOWIE FISCHER: Well exactly. This has been a fight by a lot of papers, particularly rural papers who are heavily dependent on legal notices. So if you live in Bisbee and the Bisbee City Council wants to put something up like a new ordinance or notice of a meeting, they have to go to the local paper. It used to be the Bisbee Daily Review, now it’s the Sierra Vista Herald which is combined with the Review, and say this is what we need to tell people. Now it’s raised two questions: number one is cost, and number two is, who’s reading the paper anymore? As much as I hate to say it as a kid who grew up on newspapers, fewer and fewer people are actually taking a hardcopy paper. The cities have been able to beat back efforts to eliminate the requirement entirely, and what they seem to have coalesced around, at least some of the cities, is saying look, we won’t force you to buy advertising in our printed edition, but you can do it if you put your notices (a) on your own website, which is what the cities want, and (b) on the newspaper’s website, which is bound to be less costly and it does meet some of the requirements of the newspapers in terms of that revenue stream and it does ensure that there will be a publication beyond what the city does. That seems to be gathering enough support among enough cities that this may finally be the year, and they’ve been fighting about this, heck, probably since the 1980s when I first started covering the Capitol.

MARK BRODIE: All right, Howie, one more bill I want to ask you about today, and this has to deal with sort of private property rights as it relates to businesses and whether or not they can tell people who haven’t had medical interventions to do business there. What’s this one about?

HOWIE FISCHER: Well if you use the term medical interventions, it makes it sound like, did you have a gallbladder surgery or something like that. What we’re really talking about here are vaccines. This is the question of, should you be able to say as a business owner, no you can’t come into my store unless you’re vaccinated; you can’t come into my city office unless you’re vaccinated. This has been as you point out a perennial ever since COVID, and folks are saying we don’t believe vaccines work, or it’s being presented by Representative Finchem as a Personal Medical Freedom Act; that should the government be able to tell you or should a business be able to tell you you have to have something inserted into your body in order to go in and, you know, see if they remake Rooster Cogburn a third time or something like that. That’s the way it’s gotta be for those of you who really want to do something really unusual. It says you can’t keep someone from coming in; you can’t require certain situations in terms of masking, etc. There are some interesting exceptions. For schools, it says you can keep a child out who is not immunized during an outbreak of a communicable disease, presumably something like measles, or if the person has acute conjunctivitis, a scabies infection or some sort of infection with lesions. The other exception is for medical facilities for obvious reasons. You know, you do want your doctors and nurses who are working at a hospital to not only be vaccinated so they don’t spread things, but also be able to wear masks, personal protective equipment and everything else.

MARK BRODIE: Interesting. All right, that is Howie Fischer of Capital Media Services. Howie, thanks as always, I appreciate it.

HOWIE FISCHER: Have a great morning.

LAUREN GILGER: In 2006, Arizona voters approved a new tax, this one on cigarettes and other tobacco products; 80 cents per pack to be exact. Voters passed the initiative and created First Things First, Arizona’s early childhood agency. They give out grants to programs around the state that help prepare kids for kindergarten and an increasingly in-demand service as childcare costs have skyrocketed and families struggle to pay for them. But that 2006 voter initiative didn’t include a big piece of the tobacco pie today: vaping. It was created before vaping was a thing, but today of course the popularity of vaping, often instead of smoking cigarettes, has shot up. And those are products that are not taxed to fund early childhood development in our state. And as a result, First Things First says it’s seen a massive drop in funding and it’s hitting their bottom line. They call it a vaping loophole and they’re looking to close it, but they have not been able to get bipartisan support for it at the state legislature. I spoke with First Things First CEO Melinda Gulick more about it.

MELINDA GULICK: In our initial year, First Things First received about $180 million from our share of the state’s tobacco tax revenue. And in the last fiscal year, we received about $89 million. So the impact over the course of our 20-year history has been a significant drop. In the last three years, we’ve experienced the most significant drop of $32 million, which means that the programs that we fund all over the state to serve children birth to five are even more limited than they were before. We never served every single child birth to five, and there are about half a million children birth to five throughout Arizona, and we focus in three areas: quality early learning, children’s preventative health, and family support. Now with other federal funding being cut, the state budget very tight, and our funding dropping, those services for children and families are even more limited, creating real challenges for families throughout Arizona.

LAUREN GILGER: Right, so big implications here in terms of the money coming in. Did you see this coming? Like this sounds like it’s been a slow progression in terms of the drop in funding. Was it always apparent to you there at First Things First that this was because of the shift to vaping?

MELINDA GULICK: Well we’ve had an interesting history as First Things First. The legislature swept First Things First funding or attempted to during the Great Recession, and the board of First Things First took it all the way to the Supreme Court and our funds, because they were approved by the citizens, are voter protected. And so for years, we wanted to really just stay quiet, do our work, focus on children birth to five throughout Arizona, and when I came to the agency four years ago, it was clear then that it was time for us to really focus on the importance of early childhood and letting all of Arizona know how important that investment in children birth to five, because of the implications brain development happens most rapidly from birth to age five and our mission that every child is ready to succeed and thrive from kindergarten and beyond. We were not going to be able to meet that mission with the increasing need and demand for services if we didn’t focus on expanding our revenue beyond our current source.

LAUREN GILGER: So you felt like it was time to speak up.

MELINDA GULICK: It was absolutely time to speak up, and we’ve had amazing support from not only the early childhood education community but the business community, the economic development community, because the tie between access to affordable, quality childcare and labor force participation is very clear. It’s one of the top two reasons people leave a job or reduce their working hours or drop out of a post-secondary attendance program is that access to affordable childcare, and so we’ve had wonderful partnerships throughout the state from business leaders, from local elected officials, and from chambers of commerce which we’re really thrilled about. And that our momentum is growing, the chorus of passionate advocates is growing, but we haven’t crossed the finish line yet.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, so I mean I want to put this into context as you’re kind of alluding to there as to what early childhood education looks like in Arizona. Arizona is one of some states that, you know, doesn’t provide any state funding for preschool, for full-day kindergarten for families. If your kid gets to kindergarten, you’re still paying for half of it if you want a full day, right? And it comes at a time in which, you know, I think a lot of families especially on the bottom end of the economic spectrum are already really strapped as we’re seeing gas prices shoot up and inflation, grocery prices remain high. The need is really there.

MELINDA GULICK: The need is absolutely there and for families, if you have an infant that you’re looking to put in a childcare situation, we’re seeing it cost as much as $25,000 a year. Preschool can be $14,000 to $16,000 a year, Pre-K in the $8,000 to $10,000 range. If you think about it, when my children were born I started saving for their college education, but I certainly wasn’t prepared to pay that amount of money mostly after-tax for childcare, and so it’s creating a real economic word problem for families, you know, does it make sense for us to pay this amount for both of us to stay in the workforce or should one of us take, you know, time off and stay home with our kids or make potentially a less than safe or less than ideal arrangement for childcare. So the connection again between today’s workforce, keeping people in the labor force, continuing their education, but also investing in Arizona’s future workforce by making sure that we’re stimulating that brain development, kids are showing up ready for kindergarten. Kids that show up ready for kindergarten have higher third-grade reading scores, higher eighth-grade math scores, higher graduation rates from high school, and post-secondary attendance is much higher with those children who’ve had that quality early learning experience. So it’s an investment in our future too.

LAUREN GILGER: Tell us about this analysis that came out of ASU they kind of did on your behalf here looking at the impact that this could have had like if vaping had been included in that original ballot language way back in 2006, how much more would have been generated in tax revenue for a program like yours?

MELINDA GULICK: So when First Things First was on the ballot in 2006, there were not alternative nicotine products on the market, so our tax specifically calls out cigarettes, cavendish, chewing tobacco and cigars. In 2007, vaping and other alternative nicotine products entered the marketplace. If they’d been included in 2006, we would have generated as a state $1.6 billion in revenue over the course of those years, a portion of which would have come to First Things First. We receive about 40% of the state’s tobacco tax revenue. And so our plea and our case to legislators is this is an additional revenue source that can fund not only early childhood but can fund, you know, some other state needs. This is our second year attempting to run a bill at the legislature, and this year we were really grateful for some leadership in the minority party to sign on to our bill, but we were not able to get bipartisan support, and you know, there’s a lot of competing priorities at the legislature and it’s an election year. And so we’ll keep beating this drum, we will not be dissuaded from pursuing this as an additional revenue source, but we’ll just have to keep working our elected leaders and also their constituents throughout the state who receive these services and are passionate about early childhood and the economy growth in their own communities.

LAUREN GILGER: All right, Melinda Gulick, Chief Executive Officer of First Things First joining us. Melinda, thank you for coming on, I appreciate it.

MELINDA GULICK: Thank you so much.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning, it’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. Coming up, a new documentary follows the life of Sonia Manzano, the first Latina cast member on “Sesame Street”. We’ll hear why the story was so important to the documentary’s director.

MARK BRODIE: But first, a group of economists that help state lawmakers get a feel for Arizona’s fiscal situation says the news isn’t fantastic. The Finance Advisory Committee estimates the state has about $200 million less now to spend than it did in January, and that could have a significant impact on what the new state budget looks like. Economist Jim Rounds with Rounds Consulting Group is a member of the Finance Advisory Committee, he joins me now to talk about what happened at the group’s meeting on Friday. Jim, good morning.

JIM ROUNDS: Good morning.

MARK BRODIE: So you know the old saw, a million here, a million there, pretty soon we’re talking about real money. $200 million, that’s real money.

JIM ROUNDS: It’s a lot of money, but at the same time we’re talking about multiple years and we’re also talking about a budget that’s $15 to $17 billion depending on the how you want to look at it. So it’s a relatively small percentage. But all the decisions that are made in terms of what we spend is made at the margin, it’s made based on the extra revenue that comes in and we’re not in a recession yet, but revenues are tight.

MARK BRODIE: Okay, so you say not in a recession yet. Does that mean you think one might be on the horizon?

JIM ROUNDS: Well I always get into a lot of trouble when I say that there could be a recession. Even just saying could makes you an outlaw because most people are predicting just the economy slowing and just being at a very slow rate of growth over the next handful of years, but business cycles are always up and down. We’re probably going to get a little bit worse before we get better and then we’ll have a very, very strong economic expansion after that. So we do have to be cautious and we have to prepare for revenues maybe coming in below what the consensus is forecasting because I still feel like they’re a little bit high in terms of the revenues in the short term and they’re a little bit low in the long term.

MARK BRODIE: So do you think it might actually be more than $200 million that we’re down at this point?

JIM ROUNDS: Potentially, but it’s going to have to do with things like additional tariff issues. I know that there’s a lot of refunds coming in and they’re going to be going out of state even though we would have paid them, so the way that they’re distributing the money really isn’t going to be helping us a whole lot but it’ll be helping other states where the headquarters are. The Iran issue; whether or not we can keep the Strait open and we can have oil flowing so we can have more affordable gas and other products that use oil. There are so many uncertain things, and we used to always say it would just take one or two shocks if the economy’s already slowing. But there’s nothing left to shock us anymore. I mean no matter what you wake up to, no matter what story you hear, is it really a shock? And so investors I don’t think are impacted as much so you don’t see the stock market with the fluctuations for the shocks for a longer period of time, like instead of a 20% correction in the Dow after an Iran, we didn’t, we saw a hit to the stock market but it wasn’t a major impact for a long period of time.

MARK BRODIE: Okay, so you mentioned Iran, and I know that was something that came up at the meeting last week. Is that a matter of with gas being so much more expensive than it was that people are spending more money on gas so they’re not able to buy big ticket items and the state is bringing in less in sales tax revenue?

JIM ROUNDS: Yeah, it would disproportionately impact lower income people and that’s why people are calling this a K-shaped recession. I know that sounds weird, but it means the upward part of the K if you picture it in your head is the higher income individuals that still have strong stock market portfolios and they still have a strong value in their homes. Lower income people don’t have that, so it’s going to be a haves and a have-nots type of a slowdown. And that’ll be important, but there’s a lot of potential negative things that could happen to us just from the normal business cycle. And so I feel like it is smart to be cautious but again I think I’m a little bit more optimistic about the state’s long-term opportunity, but I’m more realistic about the short-term potential problems. We don’t have the federal government spending trillions of dollars to keep the economy moving forward like it was in prior years. That’s got to have some impact.

MARK BRODIE: So is it mostly from your mind Iran and tariffs that are causing this, in addition to the federal COVID money not being a factor anymore? Are those sort of the main factors or are there others?

JIM ROUNDS: You normally have a business cycle that’s just from the ebb and flow of overinvestment, overspending and then you have corrections. We decided to use Keynesian economics, the theory is when you are in bad times the government spends more and when you’re in good times you spend less. Well we’ve been imposing Keynesian economics on good times and bad times; we’ve just been spending more regardless. And when you add $10 to $15 trillion to the national debt over a short period of time, obviously you’re boosting the economy, you’re borrowing from the future. We can’t keep doing that, and that impacts states because the federal government can print money, we can’t. And so we have to live within our means and even that’s difficult sometimes.

MARK BRODIE: So what advice would you give to lawmakers and the governor? I mean in theory budget talks are starting to ramp up, they have to pass a budget by the end of June. What advice would you give them based on sort of the general economic factors you’re seeing and the numbers that came out last week?

JIM ROUNDS: Well their number one job is to balance the budget. It’s not to have any economic development gimmicks or anything like that, it’s balance the budget. And you’re going to have a lot of debate on conformity related to the federal government tax law changes, again they have more ability to cut whatever they want because the state doesn't and the state doesn't because we can’t print our money. I would say be cautious. What I would like to see is what we did with the income tax cut a few years back where we had a really good debate about what to do with the extra money. There was debate about taking that 2.5% down to maybe one or 1.5% with the flat tax. We ended up setting aside money and paying off a lot of state debt and we put extra money in the rainy day fund and that’s why we have such a large amount right now, larger than it normally would have been. And I’d like to actually see some of that money used to get through any kind of slowing in the economy that’s not recession related because that’s why we set the money aside. We actually were in the room when we were discussing these types of issues, that’s why I feel like part of the rainy day fund is for the rainy day and part of it is just for imperfect management of the state’s budget.

MARK BRODIE: So just in the 30 or so seconds we have left, when you talk about this maybe being a time to use the rainy day fund, would you see this as more of like a drizzle? It sounds like you’re not saying we’re quite in a downpour at this moment.

JIM ROUNDS: No, just part of the money in there was for exactly what’s happening right now. This was predictable, we knew the federal government wasn't going to keep spending like they were spending and it was going to slow and that’s why things kind of balanced out. A lot of people put a lot of thought into it. But the state will need to be cautious and they will have to make decisions about that tax conformity bill at some point. There’s a lot of political pressure to do it.

MARK BRODIE: And there has been since January really, and before that even since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted by Congress. All right, that is economist Jim Rounds with Rounds Consulting Group. Jim, good as always to talk to you, thank you.

JIM ROUNDS: Good to see you.

MARK BRODIE: There have been efforts over the years in Arizona to transfer ownership and control of federal land to the state. Oftentimes that’s due at least in part to lawmakers not being happy with federal plans for that land. But a report published earlier this year says it would cost the state a lot of money to take control of federal land without a lot of benefit in return. Dave Wells is research director for the Grand Canyon Institute, he joins me to talk more about this. And Dave, it looks like your calculations found that if the state were to take on this federal land, it wouldn't be great for the state’s bottom line.

DAVE WELLS: No, the state actually doesn't have enough money to even deal with federal tax conformity this year, and to throw another $800 million annual cost onto the state, we don’t have the money to do that. So we’d either have to raise taxes or we’d have to make some really significant cuts to current programs.

MARK BRODIE: What are the costs for managing that land and sort of having it in the state’s portfolio?

DAVE WELLS: So one of the things is wildfires. And the other thing is potentially preventing wildfires. So wildfires we estimate would cost about $175 million, which is about 12 times what the state currently does because the way wildfires work is wherever it starts is who’s got to ultimately pay for it or reimburse people. And so and we’re talking at Forest Service and BLM land, that’s about a third of all the acreage in the state and most of the really, you know, large forest-kind of acreage in the state. So that would be one part. And the other part is mitigation, so you’ve got to it’s not very profitable to actually take all these trees out. A lot of people think that way, in fact I was talking with a forester this weekend and we were talking about the old growth forest. I said how big were those Ponderosa pines? And we were sitting at a five-inch diameter table; he says about that big. And I go wow, you know, and they would get that way about 100 years, and now they get about two feet, much smaller. And that’s because they have to compete with all these other trees and all this other stuff on the ground and it’s a much more different environment. As a consequence it’s really not that profitable to be able to cut down lots of these trees, so you’ve got to pay folks to do that and that was sort of where a lot of the money goes.

MARK BRODIE: Is it possible that there could be some kind of arrangement where even if the state were to assume control of BLM land and Forest Service land, that the federal government would still assist or maybe even just flat out pay for some of these things for wildfire mitigation to help battle wildfires if and when they start?

DAVE WELLS: Well I mean that’s a possibility I presume, but the idea would be the state essentially taking over lands that the federal government has, that’s at least the way it’s been framed in the past. And so that would mean that the federal government wouldn't have the responsibilities that it currently has, and so I think I mean I think that’s rolling the dice to basically assume that the federal government will still come in like that. And you know that’s a big thing and the a lot of ways I like to think about it is like it’s $800 million that’s coming into the state, it’s like new money that comes into the state. And if the state has to pay for it, what they have to do is sort of rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic-kind of thing. They don’t it’s not new money, they just have to take money that is currently being spent elsewhere or possibly raise your taxes and spend it on these areas instead. And the federal government is a real help to our rural communities especially because this is money that’s really going to the rural part of the state. You know here in Phoenix we’re generally doing pretty well economically even though things are a little bit sketchy at the moment, but in the rural parts of states, you know, they’re really struggling they really rely a lot on the tourism that comes in and the people use go to the restaurants and hotels and things like that.

MARK BRODIE: What are some of the other costs? I mean obviously as you say wildfire mitigation and fighting wildfires are some of the biggies, but I assume there are other costs that the federal government is currently picking up because it’s federal land that the state would have to?

DAVE WELLS: Yeah, well there’s a lot of land so there’s all these roads and all this infrastructure and campsites and things like that. I mean it’s thousands of miles of roads and so forth, and if you’ve gone on that dirt road where it turns into the rib thing or brrr-brrr-brrr, it’s you know that’s got to be taken care of and you’ve got to have these I mean a lot of the backlog in maintenance, there’s about $200 million in backlog maintenance and a lot of it has to do with structures that have to be done. There’s a lot of vehicles that the federal government pays for and maintains to maintain all that land. You think about the fishing that people do and perhaps up on the rim, you know all those lakes and reservoirs have to be maintained. There’s just a lot of things that go into that part of it as well.

MARK BRODIE: Is there an argument to be made that, you know, this is land in Arizona, Arizona should be able to control what happens on it as opposed to bureaucrats 3,000 miles away?

DAVE WELLS: Oh we’ve heard that a lot, so but a lot of you know our forest workers actually live here, so I think that you know they’re pretty connected to the land. I was talking with a guy who works for the Forest Service up in Moab, Utah a few months ago, you know he’s just he’s really connected to you know what’s going on in terms of both the wildlife that’s there and the plant life and stuff like that. So I think you know it’s really important to keep in mind that the federal government is not just the folks the bureaucrats in DC, and of course there are quite a few of them and that doesn't mean that they’re perfect or anything like that, but they are also people in our own communities actually work for the federal government.

MARK BRODIE: Is there an opportunity for the state to if it were to take control of this land to try to use it to generate more revenue so it wasn't a total, you know, $800 million money suck?

DAVE WELLS: Well that’s I mean already a lot of money comes in. I mean there’s little gains here like the federal government charges very little for grazing but the state doesn't charge very much more so and there’s not a lot of money in grazing. And there’s not I mean there already are some recreational fees and the analysis included you know the impact of that. But there I don’t think there’s a lot of extra gain to do because there’s also a thing called payment in lieu of taxes that goes to rural communities. So since the federal government doesn't pay property taxes they do a payment in lieu of taxes and this is actually a really significant source of revenue, so like in Graham County about a third of their property tax is equal to about a third of their property tax which is about a third of the land in Graham County. So it’s roughly you know fairly decent tradeoff and if you were to remove that the state would have to jump in. It’s about $50 million that goes primarily to rural counties based on the amount of federal land in their county, and you know that could mean like they’d have to increase their sales taxes by about half a cent to make up for that or the state would have to do something. And those are pretty significant impacts to those rural counties.

MARK BRODIE: Could the state sell that land? I mean could they sell it for housing or to an energy developer or something and bring in money that way?

DAVE WELLS: Well they could except I mean if you think about the state trust land it’s the most lucrative state trust land is on the periphery of the like the Phoenix area and so forth. Near the cities. And that’s not where most of the Forest Service land is. And I think you’d end up that’s where you’ll end up with like a lot of litigation in that case and generally the public wants to be able to access these lands.

MARK BRODIE: Am I right to assume that all of this presupposes that the federal government is actually doing the things that it has been doing on this land? It is, for example, paying to fight wildfires on federal land and is continuing to pay to maintain roads and lakes and things like that. That maybe this calculation would change a bit if the Feds decided not to do those things?

DAVE WELLS: Yeah, certainly there’s been a lot of disruption to the federal government since the current administration took power and there’s been a lot of folks who’ve lost their jobs and or been on leave and stuff like that. So yeah, certainly I think this you know is a period of change, but the forester I talked to thought this was also an opportunity to sort of reinvent some aspects of the Forest Service. I mentioned about the bureaucratic aspects of it, and he really thought that this was an opportunity to make some changes and that this would be an opportunity to sort of recalibrate things and the federal government could perhaps you know do a better job as we sort of move forward and think through this. So that was his view and I’d be hopeful about that kind of thing.

MARK BRODIE: All right, that is Dave Wells, research director at Grand Canyon Institute. Dave, thanks as always, I appreciate it.

DAVE WELLS: Oh thank you.

LAUREN GILGER: Good morning, it is The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Lauren Gilger.

MARK BRODIE: And I’m Mark Brodie. Two of Arizona’s congressmen are giving up their seats this year, both not running for reelection in seats they’ve held for multiple terms and both instead are running for governor.

LAUREN GILGER: Well it turns out they’re not the only ones; States Newsroom reporter Jennifer Shutt reports dozens of lawmakers are ditching Congress for gubernatorial races all over the country. I spoke with her more about why.

JENNIFER SHUTT: Some of them are a bit older; they are part of the generation that would be retired already if they were part of the traditional workforce. Others are really interested in other political office and feel like they would have a bit more authority there to institute policies that they feel are beneficial. And of course being a member of Congress, you know, it does seem a bit glamorous from the outside but there is a lot of travel and especially when you’re a newer member or even if you’ve been there for four or six years, sometimes you don’t have a whole lot of authority on committees and so there can begin to be other places, other types of work that seem really appealing once members of Congress sort of get the hang of how things work on Capitol Hill.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, I think that makes sense. So obviously we have David Schweikert and Andy Biggs congressional representatives from Arizona, longtime ones who are both leaving, both running for governor here in Arizona. Give us some examples of some of the other lawmakers on your list there who are examples of this trend elsewhere around the country.

JENNIFER SHUTT: Yeah, so every couple years, every election year we do have members of Congress running for governor, so that’s not necessarily new, but there is a pretty big interest this year, more than it normally would be in members of the House and Senate who want to run their states. We’ve got Alabama Republican Tommy Tuberville, Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet, Florida Republican Representative Byron Donalds, Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar and Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn.

LAUREN GILGER: Let’s talk a little more, Jennifer, about the repercussions, potential repercussions of this kind of volume of turnover in Congress. Like first of all, it’s just like an institutional knowledge loss, right? Congress is complicated, just figuring out how to do it is not easy for folks, right?

JENNIFER SHUTT: Oh of course. The practices and procedures and norms in the House and Senate are sometimes very archaic and confusing, and in addition to that some of the the experts on Congress I spoke with for this story mentioned the basics that I didn't even think about, right, like setting up a new office and hiring staff to do constituent work is, you know, something that members who have been around a little bit longer are used to and seasoned in, but these newer members really have to figure out for the first time just how to get from their office in one of the office buildings to the floor to vote, you know, where the lunches are held, you know, how to do all these things. And I really started thinking of it, you know, oh yeah, of course when you start a new job there’s all these basics that you have to learn before you can do the complicated work that makes anyone successful in any job.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, so I mean what might that kind of brain drain mean for what’s coming? I mean it’s a different generation probably of lawmakers we can expect in Congress, is that a bad thing?

JENNIFER SHUTT: So there are pros and cons to this, right, and we’ve seen a lot of stories during the past several years about more senior members of Congress and some examples in those members of cognitive decline that raised a lot of alarm bells. And so there has been a lot of conversation about whether or not there should be an age limit on members of Congress and that is a dynamic in this as well. You’re seeing a lot of older members want to leave the institution before they could potentially reach that type of situation. And then in addition to that you get sort of those mid-career lawmakers, the ones who may be approaching traditional retirement age and they feel like they’ve accomplished a good bit and they’re just sort of ready to hand off the baton to the next generation, and so there can be some pros in here to getting a younger generation the types of experiences they have, the type of outlook they have is going to be a lot different, but sometimes when you lose that classic negotiating experience, it does take a little bit of time for those newer members to get comfortable with that.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, that makes sense. Also, what’s appealing about the other side of this for many of these folks? What’s appealing about being governor as opposed to what happens in Washington as a member of Congress in particular?

JENNIFER SHUTT: Right, so if you’re a member of the US House of Representatives, you are one of 435 members and if you’re a member of the US Senate, you’re one of 100. There’s a lot of negotiating, a lot of compromise that has to be undertaken if you want to be successful there, you have to sort of build those relationships not only sometimes across the aisle but across the Rotunda as well with members in the opposite chamber if you want to get your bills into law; that can often be a learning curve and a very slow process in the United States Congress. And so a lot of these members are now looking at governor and saying hey, I could set my own agenda, I would be one of one, I would be leading and sort of setting the agenda for my statehouse. You know, some of them would go back to their states, for example the Alabama State House would potentially be very friendly to a Republican executive, something similar in Colorado where Bennet is running, he’s a Democrat, his state legislature is likely to be friendly to his policy proposals and that just makes things a little bit less complicated and gives them a little bit more control than they have in Congress.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, so I mean how much of this though is just political, Jennifer? Like if we’re looking at the writing on the wall for some of these folks in terms of just the political landscape and their reality of whether or not they’ll be able to be reelected in the future, is that part of these calculations as well?

JENNIFER SHUTT: Oh they’re absolutely part of this calculation. Typically in a midterm election year, which is what we’re heading into this November, the president’s party loses seats and is likely to lose control of at least one chamber of Congress. That’s most likely going to be the House of Representatives. So over there of the members who we’ve seen announce retirement or that they’re seeking another elected office, a majority of those are Republicans. We’re seeing a similar trend in the Senate as well because they know that there is a possibility they’re going to be in the minority party come January of next year and they have a lot less power, they aren't in leadership and so they can’t set the floor agenda, and so those who feel that they’ve accomplished something or that they could accomplish more in a different position are really looking for the exits at this point.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, okay. Puts it into context for us watching what’s happening here in our own state. That is Jennifer Shutt, senior reporter for States Newsroom joining us. Jennifer, thanks so much, I appreciate it.

JENNIFER SHUTT: Yeah, thanks so much for having me.

LAUREN GILGER: Good morning, it is The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Lauren Gilger.

MARK BRODIE: And I’m Mark Brodie. “Sesame Street” made its TV debut in late 1969. It of course featured both puppets and humans. One of the latter was a young actress named Sonia Manzano. But you probably know her by her character’s name.

SONIA MANZANO (AS MARIA): Hi, Big Bird.

BIG BIRD: Oh, hi, Maria.

DOCUMENTARY NARRATOR: Sonia Manzano, the Maria of “Sesame Street.” Sonia Manzano, as far as I’m concerned, is the nation’s Tía. She was what we all wanted to be; we wanted to be with her and like her. She’s a part of American history. In a world of children’s television that was cotton candy, she was filet mignon. She did everything; she not only acted, she wrote, she produced, she did it all. Sonia is legit. We Latinos and we children, we love her.

MARK BRODIE: That’s from a documentary called “Street Smart: Lessons from a TV Icon.” Its director, Ernie Bustamante, who’s mostly a TV writer, says when he first met Sonia Manzano a decade ago, he originally wanted to create a sitcom based on her memoir of growing up in the South Bronx. He describes it as a fish out of water kind of story with Manzano attending a prestigious performing arts high school in Manhattan. But the idea evolved over time into a documentary. It showed this past weekend at the Phoenix Film Festival, and when I spoke with Bustamante recently I asked what it is about Sonia’s story that speaks so much to him.

ERNIE BUSTAMANTE: You know it was a very personal project for me in the sense that when I grew up in the 1980s watching “Sesame Street,” I really saw and identified with Sonia Manzano as Maria, Emilio Delgado as Luis, Puerto Rican and Mexican-American couple, because I’m Mexican and Puerto Rican as well. And so I really identified with them and I saw my parents.

MARK BRODIE: So in the documentary Sonia talks about the fact that when she was cast on the show, like other than her seeing West Side Story as a kid, she hadn't really seen someone who looked like her on TV. It sounds like what you’re saying is up until this time you hadn't really seen anyone who looked like your parents or maybe your family on TV.

ERNIE BUSTAMANTE: No, not at all and especially with comedy. It wasn't until I got older, entered the industry as a writer, that I realized that that depiction of a Latino couple, Sonia Manzano, Emilio Delgado as Luis and Maria, were not stereotyped, they were not caricatures, they were fully developed characters really grounded in human, and especially in comedy Latinos are often relegated to caricatures, stereotypes, you name it, and so it wasn't until I started writing and working on shows and developing my own shows I really saw how much of an impact they made because their presence was so real, it was so grounded. And not only their portrayal but how long they lasted on the show. They were on that show for decades, which is unheard of in mainstream television, and so the impact that Sonia Manzano had and she continues to have when we screen it you can really see it from the audience.

MARK BRODIE: Why I wonder if in addition to the impact that she and Emilio Delgado had based on like their accurate portrayals of actual human beings. The fact that they were on a children’s show, that kids were watching this and then growing up sort of not thinking anything unusual about seeing two humans who are like these people they watched on TV.

ERNIE BUSTAMANTE: Right, yeah, you know that definitely was a factor and it’s really interesting because as I made this documentary I would meet people who would say that Sonia Manzano was the first Latina that they ever saw, that they ever knew. And so, you know, she also had back then “Sesame Street” was also doing, you know, lessons about culture, lessons about language, teaching Spanish, and so she not only was the first introduction of a Latino person to audiences but also to the language of Spanish.

MARK BRODIE: Well so growing up also in the 80s as you did, you know folks like Maria and Luis and Mr. Hooper and Big Bird, like those were pretty formative parts of my childhood. I wonder what kinds of things you hear from viewers as you show this movie around the country and they if they have the chance to to meet Sonia and maybe what you hear from people, maybe what you see on their faces as they watch some of the old clips from “Sesame Street.”

ERNIE BUSTAMANTE: I mean I got to tell you it’s overwhelming. It’s overwhelming because people in the screenings that Sonia attends and even before the documentary while we were filming the documentary, you know Sonia is an author and I remember one time accompanying her to a book signing and people were in line to meet her to have their book signed and many would burst into tears. I remember us when we were working on the TV project, an executive on Zoom burst into tears saying how much of an impact Sonia had growing up, how her story from her memoir resonated so much with her. And so I see it in these screenings and it’s amazing because, you know, her impact is felt by people across generations.

MARK BRODIE: Well so when “Sesame Street” went on the air, it was a pretty innovative approach at the time for children’s programming and very different from what kids had been given on TV before. I’m wondering what Sonia had to say about sort of where her thought was, you know what her thought process was starting off doing this kind of radical departure.

ERNIE BUSTAMANTE: Yeah, and especially when Sonia gets cast on “Sesame Street,” she’s 21 years old, it’s her first television role. And at the time and you’ll learn this in the documentary she was in the original production of “Godspell” off-Broadway. And one of the challenges that she faced was the character because the character wasn't fully formed and so, you know she’s just trying to get her, you know, bearings and her experience and she’s new to this she’s new to working with puppets. That’s overwhelming for her as you’ll see in the documentary. All of these challenges she overcomes and she eventually excels and she really succeeds.

MARK BRODIE: What does Sonia see as her legacy from all of those years being on this, you know, world-renowned television show?

ERNIE BUSTAMANTE: You know there’s a lot of lessons that you can take away from Sonia Manzano’s career, from her work, from her advocacy, from her comedy, you know that goes I remember when I started making the film, you know she didn't really tell me much in terms of like the direction or have any notes, the only thing she told me was make it funny. Which is I think maybe kind of an unusual thing to hear from somebody who like she wasn't delivering punchlines on “Sesame Street.” Yeah, but she also was a very she also was part of this amazing comedic duo with Oscar the Grouch. And she played opposite him for many years and even when, you know, “Sesame Street” did the movie “Follow That Bird” when “Sesame Street” went from TV to film, they paired Maria and Oscar together on that and they were kind of this unlikely comedy duo. Like Abbott and Costello or something. Absolutely and when I went back into, you know looking at the footage I really saw it, you ask her who’s my favorite who’s your favorite character and she says Oscar the Grouch. And I remember Caroll Spinney was doing a Q&A as Oscar and they asked Oscar, who’s your best friend on “Sesame Street”? And Oscar says, well if I guess it was anyone it has to be Maria. And so that to me is what permeates throughout her legacy for me because a lot of people will say, you know her legacy was inspiring teachers, her legacy was teaching language, there’s so many lessons people are going to take away and I don’t think her legacy is one thing or another, but for me personally her legacy is comedy through an absolutely grounded and real lens. Because everything she’s done in entertainment on television has been through the lens of comedy. And I think that’s why she’s been able to have such a great impact was because the approach was always through comedy, always through making people laugh.

MARK BRODIE: All right, that is Ernie Bustamante, director of the documentary “Street Smart: Lessons from a TV Icon.” Ernie, thank you so much, I appreciate it.

ERNIE BUSTAMANTE: Thank you.

LAUREN GILGER: Lots of this song in my head right now, Mark.

MARK BRODIE: I can only imagine.

LAUREN GILGER: It’s the best, so it’s the best. All right, we’ll leave it on that note today for The Show. Don’t forget you can follow us on Instagram @kjzztheshow and you can sign up for the show’s weekly newsletter, Radio Heads, at theshow.kjzz.org. For Mark Brodie, I’m Lauren Gilger. Thanks for joining us.

MARK BRODIE: Thanks for listening to The Show’s podcast. The Show is produced by Sativa Peterson, Nick Sanchez, Amber Victoria Singer, Athena Ankrah and Ayana Hamilton. The Show was created by Jon Hoban, our executive producer is Amy Silverman.