There is no doubt that much of the session’s oxygen will be sucked up by the major issues that failed to produce any legislation following last year’s battles. These issues include reforming the tax code, mental health services, and education, as well as another round of sparring over Iowa setting up a health insurance exchange to work in conjunction with Obama Care.

While these will grab a majority of the headlines, and a good share of our attention here at The Conservative Reader: Iowa, there have already been a number of very interesting bills introduced that we will also be following.

As of now the bills and issues outside “the big 4” that we have flagged to watch closely are as follows: Term limits, random drug testing for recipients 84th of certain state benefits, banning red light and speed cameras, and the fate of nuclear power in Iowa.

After being deluged for so many months with candidates and their ever changing poll numbers, it is easy to forget that in many ways the caucus season is an imperfect method for measuring Iowa’s current ideological perspective. Removing the factors attached to individual candidates such as “likeability” and “electability”, and instead gauging the debate and the public reaction of Iowans to more hyper-local issues is a far more telling indicator of where we stand. Ironically these debates and their results likely will tip our hand as to which Presidential candidate will be awarded our 6 electoral votes in November.

In the following weeks stay tuned for investigations, updates, analysis, and opinions on the major issues being debated at the State House. As mentioned earlier, while we will not ignore the most publicized topics of debate this session, a number of bills that will exist in the shadows of the major priorities are just as important.

Though we will be closely watching with an appropriate level of skepticism, we wish all those involved with the 84th General Assembly well in their efforts to make improvements for all Iowans. When we feel they have achieved improvement—we will trumpet it. When we feel they have caused damage to our way of life—they will be called to account.

On with Democracy…

Health Insurance Exchange

The debate raging on a national level regarding Obama Care has produced 50 separate state level clashes on this unpopular legislation’s viability, practicality, and future. Currently 27 states are suing the Federal government on the grounds the law is unconstitutional, while last week a referendum in Ohio resulted in 66% of voters expressing their wishes to be excluded.

In Iowa the form this debate has taken largely centers on the state level requirement to set up a health insurance exchange to work in accordance with Obama Care. Democrats tried last session to construct this exchange but the measure failed and set the scene for an all-out slug fest in 2012.

The roll-call from this Democratic attempt, in which 12 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the exchange, was a major factor Ms. Rogers cites in spurring her decision to run for this House seat, “It was something that some of these Republicans campaigned against and then went in and voted for, and that was a real thorn in my side.”

Besides viewing it as flatly unconstitutional, she would have voted no on the exchange for two main reasons. The first is due to differing interpretations on what failure to set up the exchanges would result in. Though the Republicans who voted in favor did so on the grounds that failing to do so would trigger authorization of the Federal government to do it for us, Ms. Rogers believes that not having the exchanges would result in Iowa receiving a waiver from the Executive branch:

“We have to fight the full implementation of Obama Care every way we can. The Supreme Court could announce as early as tomorrow whether they will hear the Obama Care challenges. Why would we volunteer to set up a new state bureaucracy before the Supreme Court has ruled? We shouldn’t. Why would we set up a state exchange and volunteer to pay for that unconstitutional debacle? We shouldn’t. Obama has stated publicly that he feels he will be forced to grant waivers to states that haven’t passed the exchanges because there is no way to administer Obama Care without them. That means that by refusing to implement the health insurance exchanges, Iowans effectively have the ability to opt out of a major portion of Obama Care.”

The second reason is funding, and more specifically the long and destructive history the states and the federal government have in jointly paying for programs, “State governments, including Iowa, so often get duped on the promise of free federal money. The issue with these exchanges is that they come in partially funded, and sure there is that promise of federal money there but the other part has to come from the state—and that means from the taxpayer. It’s not just a tax hike up front with the federal government, that we can’t control, but it is going to be a tax hike up front for the portion that our state has to pay.”

Issues Going Forward

Education Reform

Having spoken to many Republicans, and interviewing multiple candidates and elected officials, you don’t need to be a political expert to see that Governor Branstad’s outline for reforming Iowa’s educational system is in real trouble. Although constructed as a proposal big enough to build a legacy on, when you get equal blow-back from Conservatives and the teachers’ union the chances of breaking ground, let alone building anything, are slim.

Having worked her way through college teaching private pre-school and kindergarten this is an area that Ms. Rogers has a special interest in:

 “I don’t think its rocket science to figure out why people aren’t rushing to support a plan that takes the best teachers out of the classroom at a time when we are trying to find ways to better reach children. The major problem I have with it is that the good teachers are going to be teaching 50% less, and how on earth are you going to help children when you are taking their teachers away? What the plan does is it increases bureaucracy and decreases the number of good teachers we have in the classroom.”

Beyond disliking it for those reasons, she fears, and was told by a Department of Education employee in the Branstad administration, that one of the effects of the reform would be to divert good teachers from Ankeny to Des Moines. If true, this would not only threaten losing quality teachers in the classroom but possibly losing them to a school district outside of HD 37.

In place of the current system, and the Governor’s proposed reform, the changes she would push to implement would have a different focus:

 “Educational choice is one of my number one issues. I love open enrollment because it does introduce an element of choice into the public school system. I would also go further and allow more freedom for home-schoolers, more freedom for charter schools, and more freedom for private schools. If vouchers are a part of that, even better, because they are a tool that introduces a market element into the system that lowers the cost and increases the amount of learning that is going on.”

Illegal Immigration

Though failure to take control of the Iowa Senate last week severely reduced its likelihood, a widespread willingness of Iowa Republicans to address illegal immigration is beginning to form. Ms. Rogers indicated that she would favor potentially passing legislation to hamper Iowa’s influx of illegal aliens and when asked specifically about Arizona’s recent attempt had this to say, “I don’t see anything wrong with what Arizona has done, because when they joined the Union they basically said that we are going to give you (the federal government) the responsibility to protect us and that this is no longer just our state’s border but it’s now a Federal border. All the Arizona law does is re-enforce the fact that it is still a state border. If the Federal government is going to back out of their responsibility to protect it as our nation’s border I think that Arizona has every right to protect it as a state border.”

Varnum

Although the list of Republican legislative priorities is long and getting longer, it’s safe to say that passing a Constitutional Amendment barring gay marriage in Iowa has a home in the top three. In one of the most cowardly and inexcusable political maneuvers in our state’s history, Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has managed to save rural Democrats by robbing all Iowans of the opportunity to have their voices heard.

As one would suspect, being an attorney and a Conservative, Ms. Rogers has a strong opinion on the Varnum decision. From a legal perspective the two problems she has with the Supreme Court’s ruling was that they considered some issues that were not part of the legal briefs filed and “they applied a heightened level of scrutiny to a new class, and created this class based on a behavior and not a real and immutable characteristic.” Noting that she was not surprised by the unanimous nature of the decision she added, “I think it was a political decision from beginning to end and that they had the result in mind before they ever read the briefs.”

Analysis of the Race

Three factors that are likely to come into play for her candidacy are how the district views the Tea Party, how she navigates through a crowded field, and how voters react to her relative youth. Far from shying away from any of them, she actually views all three as positives—and makes some very convincing arguments in the process.

For any Tea Party politician, whether running or governing, an issue always in play is the political peril inherent in cutting government and removing services that people have become accustomed to. While its effect will be softened by the fact that this is a Republican primary, and that applying Tea party principals at the state level as opposed to the federal level is a far different animal, it still will remain an issue. An example of this is that next session will gavel in with the Governor seeking legislative approval to cut Medicaid. This is a reality that Ms. Rogers recognizes and will seek to deal with in the following way, “You have to educate people and make them realize that some of these things are not theirs and that government can’t give them anything that they don’t first take away from somebody else. And if you wouldn’t reach into your neighbors pocket and take it then you shouldn’t be living your life in a way that you are willing to take it through the government.”

The fact that there will be many other contenders vying for the seat does not intimidate her in the slightest and is something she sees as a net positive for the district, “I’m not afraid to run in a primary against five or six other people, and really I’m excited for the district because they will have an opportunity to vote for someone who is as Conservative as this district is and that shares their principles. Even being a lot younger than the other candidates, I still probably have a longer track record of political activism and fighting for these principles.”

As she mentioned, at 25 she will be both the youngest person in this race and one of the younger candidates in recent memory to run for the Iowa House. While I could be wrong, my sense is that this won’t play a big role in the race. I say this, first, because it would have to be brought up by another candidate and it’s unlikely that this contest will devolve into that type of an unseemly affair. Second, as she notes, she has the background and the experience to offset and eliminate it as a viable factor, “I think that youth and inexperience can go together, but I’ve been in this long enough that inexperience isn’t a word that applies to me. The two things that are really important are your motivation and your principals, and I have both in spades.”

After spending a few hours with her, this is a claim that is hard to doubt. She has a keen sense of tactical politics and one could easily see her going toe-to-toe with both the fellow Republicans in this primary and opposing Democrats should she be selected.

The results of the recent Ankeny City Council election, in which the most Conservative candidates running all won, indicates that voters will certainly give her a chance to win them over. She will likely make the most of it—and in doing so make this race very, very interesting.

Photo courtesy of Dave Davidson, whose work can be found at prezography.com

This is the second installment of a two-part interview, to read part one click here.

Education

Governor Branstad’s legacy-minded education reform proposal has struggled to draw support since its release on October 3rd, and you can count Mr. Landon as one of those lacking in enthusiasm.

A core tenet of Landon’s philosophy is local control. The benefit he sees in applying this principle to education is that the parents of each child, and the teachers in the actual class room, will have their voices better heard and their concerns more directly dealt with,

“My first reaction (to the governor’s plan) is that it drives us towards more state control and more mandates on levels of performance. I think that we are going to have to reform the system, but I think that instead of less local control we need to focus on more local control. I think we need to make sure that the families, the school teachers, and the administrators all have their say on how this should be done. I really believe that parents and school teachers, the people who are in that sector, know the best for their kids”.

Health Care

The Democrats failure last session to construct Iowa’s insurance exchange program in accordance with Obama Care means that a nasty, brutal fight awaits next year. By all accounts this will be one of the three most high-profile issues debated by the Iowa Legislature in 2012, and one that ultimately drew fellow candidate Stacey Rogers (R-Ankeny) into the race. Landon, for one, would have voted no last year on SF 404 and sounds ready to engage in the fight,

“What would guide me is local control. The rights of District 37 residents and the rights of Iowans have to come first. Anything that’s done has to be for their benefit and their economic interests. And frankly, I view Obama Care as unconstitutional from the get-go. I am not in favor of taking care of this through the government because they (the people) will not be taken care of the way they should be.”

On Illegal Immigration

“I am a proponent of legal immigration. It is probably not that big of an issue in this particular district, but there are areas in Iowa where it is. As a state issue I would say that the Federal government, like in so many other things, has failed. I am against the taxpayer having to pay for the upkeep of people who have come here illegally.”

Barring an unexpected Federal resolution to this problem Landon indicated a willingness to possibly engage at the state level, “If the Federal government won’t do it and they are going to continue to let the border be porous, from the standpoint of public safety and who is going to protect the taxpayer, there has to be a process that protects you the citizen.”

On Varnum (Gay Marriage)

“That should have been decided by the voters. That is a monumental shift in society and voters need to have their say. If a constitutional amendment is the only way for voters to get their voice heard on it, then we need to do it.”

On The Tea Party

In response to a question seeking his thoughts on the Tea Party and if he would consider himself a “Tea Party-ish” candidate, he answered, “I haven’t found anything in their platform that offends me or that I take issue with. I am for individual rights. I think people can make their own decisions and government would be well advised to pay attention to that. Having said that, I am part of the process and a consensus builder, I just don’t think you can go out there as a maverick and get a whole lot done. What I want is for Lincoln and Douglas townships to flourish and for Ankeny to flourish. The only way I can do that is by being an effective voice, and the only way to be an effective voice is to be a part of the process.”

Race Analysis and Summary

The contest for the Republican nomination in House District 37 will be of elevated importance as the probability is high that the nominee will ultimately be the Representative. Due to the fact that the district has a 2,400 advantage in registered Republicans over registered Democrats in what is already shaping up to be a Republican wave year, it is likely that the nominee may run un-opposed. Even more likely is that if the Democrats do choose to field a candidate they will not bother to recruit a top-notch challenger or commit substantial resources to the effort.

In what could end up being a crowded field of Republicans, John Landon is a serious contender who will be in it for the long haul. He appears both fired up for the race and ready to put in the time and work that will be required to win the seat. The major pillars that his candidacy will be built on are: less intrusive government, more local control, simplicity in legislative solutions, sensitivity to Iowa’s taxpayers, and a vehement opposition to unfunded mandates.

In particular, emphasizing that the failure to make budget cuts leads to higher taxes and a crusade against unfunded mandates could garner wide-spread appeal in District 37.

As his background suggests he is clearly positioned in the race as the “business candidate.” While often times the “business candidate” moniker is attached to folks who have had professional success, it’s worth noting that the business-like way Mr. Landon breaks down large issues as he thinks through them suggests that he would translate these skills to governance should he be elected.

Though we are early in the process, as Republicans begin to look at the field they will find much to like about John Landon as a person and as a candidate.

The population explosion the city of Ankeny has seen over the last ten years has brought many changes to this Des Moines suburb. Along with construction of a new high school and the surge of large retailers that accompany a population growth from 27,000 to 45,000 in one decade, Ankeny has also received a make-over in its state legislative districts.

In terms of the Iowa House, what resulted is for the first time Ankeny has been split into two House districts. Replacing old HD 70 are new political territories HD 37 and HD 38 (click for maps). While former HD 70 Representative Kevin Koester (R-Ankeny) is running in HD 38, the city’s other new district, composed of north Ankeny extending to Alleman and east to the Bondurant city line, finds itself without representation.

Recently I sat down with one of the candidates vying to be this district’s inaugural public servant, Republican John Landon.

Any voter sizing up a candidate who will speak for them at any level of government needs to seek answers to three basic questions—who are they?, where do they stand?, and why do they stand there? The following should give you a good feel for all three.

The Candidate

Mr. Landon is a fourth generation Iowan who grew up working on a family farm in Marshall County. After serving two years in the Navy, which included a tour in Vietnam, he returned to Iowa and earned a degree in Ag Business from Iowa State University. Following school he embarked on a 28 year career working for two international grain companies. After retiring from that business in 2002, he became a partner in the Iowa based Peoples Company. He, his wife Marvis, and their two children moved to Ankeny in 1994 where he became active in both his church and the Boy Scouts.

His reasons for getting into politics, and ultimately deciding to make this run, are both numerous and specific, “I became increasingly dissatisfied with state government over the last 12 years.” The root of this dissatisfaction first emerged from the exposure his business career gave him to industry regulations, “Lots of people in the Legislature make all these rules and say ‘hey that’s great,’ but they don’t understand the impact that they’re having on people and business—it has gotten to be a heavy blanket over business.”

While his business dealings with the government may have laid the foundation, it was a trip to the State Capital over an issue that flared up in 2009 that proved to be the final impetus,

“There became a discussion in the state about the deductibility of Federal income taxes on our state returns. There was a public hearing and we drove down to the Capital and went into the House chamber for that hearing. And I saw the Speaker of the House rule over it like a little dictator with an iron fist, and eventually he threw us all out and cleared the gallery. I realized at that point just how far state government had become removed from the average citizen, and that got me activated.”

The Issues

The Budget

When asked if a $6 billion annual budget was appropriate for Iowa, Mr. Landon clearly indicated that he would come in shooting for a much lower number, “I am strongly in favor of people keeping as much as their money as possible . . . we need to break this down and see what we are getting back for the taxes that we pay—and I’m struggling to see what we get back.”

Directly related to the spending cuts that would be necessary to shrink our yearly outlay, I specifically asked about the $42 million in “targeted reductions and savings” the governor will be asking the legislature to approve next year and the political peril this may entail. He responded, “It’s going to be used as a hot issue no matter what happens, because you are dealing with people who are receiving public aid for their health care.”

Though no specified cuts have been proposed, he would stand with the governor on this issue in theory, “We are talking about trying to find 2%-3% spent in inefficiencies,” a percentage he felt could in part be found using the Six Sigma method.

While noting the complexities involved, he is quick to draw a direct line from the failure to make budget reductions to the eventual higher taxes that they lead to,

“I want Iowans to have the best care possible but I also have a heart for the people who are paying taxes, I understand how complicated that balance gets. This is about the will of the people. This is the time where people have to stand up and say either I am satisfied to give up half my income or not. If that’s what they choose then fine, but I am here to tell you that it’s not fine, and it’s not working. There is no way that people can feel good about the current tax structure and what is going on. We cannot succeed by taxing ourselves to prosperity.”

Taxes

One of the major issues to go unresolved last session was tax reform, and center stage in that debate was how to go about lowering commercial property taxes in Iowa. Should this issue come before a Representative Landon he would be inclined to support the largest reduction plan on the table. Interestingly, in addition to standing for cutting taxes he has some proposed solutions to address the root cause of our ever-growing tax burden, “When these school boards and community boards are faced with mandates for a rule the state is making and they are not sent any money to do it, it is going to end up in your tax receipt just as plain as day. And I think unfunded mandates ought to be absolutely unconstitutional and illegal in the state of Iowa.”

When asked if this is something he would propose in legislative form on his arrival to the chamber, he replied, “That is a bill that needs to be brought forward and something there needs to be a good public discussion about.”

Note: To read the rest of the story click here for Part 2

Stay tuned in the coming weeks as The Conservative Reader:Iowa will follow this developing primary and have a sit down interview with Mr. Landon as he embarks on this campaign.

The following is the press release sent out by the Landon camp:

For immediate release

October 5, 2011

ANKENY, Iowa — Pledging to be an aggressive leader for a balanced state budget, economic development, education reform, and agriculture, Ankeny resident John Landon today announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for Iowa’s State House District 37.

A lifelong Iowan with a background in business, Landon (525 NE Stone Valley Drive, Ankeny, IA) is a pro-life, pro-family conservative committed to balancing the state budget; creating jobs in a favorable climate for business and agricultural growth; eliminating costly regulations; and making education more cost effective.  “I will be an aggressive leader for Ankeny and surrounding townships in the state legislature,” said Landon.  “Jobs are vital, and residents of this district want a leader who shares their vision of Ankeny job base and agricultural growth without raising taxes.”

Landon is partner at Peoples Company where he is a farm manager and agricultural land Realtor.   Landon is a Viet Nam veteran who served in the Navy Seabees prior to graduating from Iowa State University.  He is an active leader at Cornerstone Baptist Church and served many years as a Boy Scout leader with Troop 188. He has also been a leader in the Polk County Republicans in recent years.  Landon, and his wife Marvis, have two children, Eric (married to Rebecca) and Morgan who both graduated from Ankeny High School, having attended Ankeny schools K-12.

Iowa House District 37 is a newly created district that includes the north side of Ankeny (Ankeny Precincts 1-7, 9-10), along with Lincoln and Douglas townships.  The primary for Iowa House District 37 will be held in June and election in November 2012.

While there were some notable and very positive accomplishments, Senate Democrats also stood in the way of a lot of positive progress.

Here are a few accomplishments followed by some of the missed opportunities.

1) Sustainable Budget

We finally are back on the path to long-term fiscal sustainability with a budget that spends less than we take in and funds Iowa’s priorities. Is there more we can cut? Absolutely. But it’s a good start and a real break from the problems of the last four years.

2) Rule & Regulatory Reform

We have begun to change the direction of the state when it comes to onerous rules and regulations that are stagnating job creation. Our 11 city “Re-Open Iowa for Business” tour has yielded some great suggestions and opened a lot of eyes. Stay tuned in a few weeks more information on this as our comprehensive report will be made public.

3) Reorganization of Economic Development Department

This reorganization of Iowa’s economic development department, one of Governor Branstad’s top priorities, will give the state more flexibility as it pursues and recruits entrepreneurs and job creators to Iowa. This reorganization, coupled with helping our existing businesses, will be key to continuing to grow Iowa.

What were some of our missed opportunities because of Senate Democrat obstruction?

1) Property Taxes

In order to make our state more competitive for jobs, we must have lower property taxes – for all classes of property. Unfortunately, the property taxpayers of Iowa will not get the comprehensive tax reform that they deserve. We will continue to work hard to find a bi-partisan solution and make next session the session of true property tax reform.

2) Clean Abundant Energy

In order to grow the economy of the future, we must have adequate, clean and reliable base-load energy. Nuclear energy is one excellent source that would create a lot of good jobs in Iowa. The Iowa House passed legislation to continue to pursue possibility of adding additional reliable base-load energy. The votes existed to pass it in the Iowa Senate in bi-partisan fashion, but Senator Gronstal obstructed a vote.

3) Income Tax Relief

Both individual and corporate income tax reductions would help grow our economy, create jobs and stimulate positive economic activity. Once again, it did not happen this session because of Senate Democratic obstruction but count on us to continue to push forward next session.

4) Collective Bargaining Reform

The Iowa House, with broad support, voted to inject some common sense reforms into the collective bargaining and arbitration processes in Iowa. For the long term fiscal sustainability of the state, we believe there needs to be more equity and fairness in the process. As it stands today, over 80 percent of state employees pay nothing for health insurance and most get lucrative benefit packages and healthy annual salary increases that are out-of-line with the private sector. It is not just the union bosses that should be at the table – the taxpayers deserve a seat at the table too.

5) Education Reform

We must once again make education about the children and discontinue the notion that simply spending more money will equal better student achievement. We need to set high standards and hold everybody accountable for the success and achievement of our students.

6) Late-Term Abortion & Marriage

Because of inaction by Senate Democrats, Iowa could soon become the Midwest Capital for Late-Term Abortions. We had the votes in the Iowa Senate to slam the door on abortionists like Dr. LeRoy Carhart who wanted to come into Council Bluffs and open up a clinic, but Senate Democrats refused to do what needed to be done. On the issue of marriage, Iowans sent a strong message last fall with the ouster of the three Supreme Court Justices. We need to keep the pressure on to give Iowans the statewide vote they deserve on the issue of marriage.

Though we made some positive steps forward, much of what we set out to accomplish not yet been achieved. Senate Democrats obstructed much of our pro-jobs agenda.

That is why we must work hard day in and day out to talk to our family, friends and neighbors about the important issues facing Iowa and continue to press forward with what we know will bring the brightest future for all present and future Iowans.

As always, I welcome hearing from you and can be reached by phone at 515-281-3560 or by e-mail at paul.mckinley@legis.state.ia.us

The Iowa Legislature annually engages the state’s school funding formula to provide “allowable growth” to public school districts.  Because of the state’s challenging financial situation, the Republican Governor and Republican-controlled House have been attempting to hold the line with a proposed 0% allowable growth against the Democrat-controlled Senate.  Impasse occurred.  Public school superintendents lobbied hard for a 2% increase.  Typical partisan politics have thus far prevented a final budget deal, and the Legislature is several weeks past their anticipated adjournment as a result.

I have an interesting perspective on this issue of educational spending, because I spent the first 20 years of my career as a teacher, coach, associate principal, and principal in several public schools of Iowa.  For the past 11 years, I have served as the superintendent of a non-public school.

I am embarrassed to admit some of the spending habits in practice during the first phase of my educational career.  We didn’t do anything illegal.  And there were no $500 hammers.  But, as I look back on those days, we could have been MUCH more effective stewards with the monies entrusted to us by Iowa’s taxpayers.

As we were closing out the books on fiscal years, we were sometimes left scrambling to figure out how to spend balances of General Fund accounts which could not be carried over to the next fiscal year.  Budget makers too often padded accounts from year-to-year for “wants,” not “needs.”  Such was why I was always a strong advocate of zero-based budgeting, but I was seldom successful in implementing that practice in its purest form.

I vividly recall attending a meeting of government officials who were charged with explaining the process for submitting proposals to obtain Obama stimulus monies for Iowa’s schools.  A surreal moment occurred when one of the policymakers actually said, “There is so much money, I don’t know if you can figure out how to spend it all by the deadline.”  I shook my head in disbelief at that time.  Did he really say that? I thought.  He did.  No question.

My perspective on educational spending changed dramatically when I entered the arena of non-public education.  Our schools survive mainly on the tuition dollars of our parents and guardians, with additional dollars raised through fund-raising.  Non-public school leaders take their fiduciary responsibilities very seriously, because we definitely need to give a strong return on the investment of parents and donors.  The business practices are much more conservative in non-public schools than in public schools.  Waste not, want not.

If I said aloud to my public school colleagues what I am about to write publicly, I would probably be met with fairly defensive responses, but I must say the “unpardonable.”  Just as federal and state governments should be attempting to tighten their belts by eliminating duplicated programs and wasteful spending practices, so, too, should the state’s schools carefully scrutinize all line items and expenditures.

Iowa’s schools so often look at increased funding as THE answer to any problem.  But I contend that millions of dollars could be saved through concerted streamlining.  To whom much is given, much is expected.  Accountability is crucial.  ALL of the schools in Iowa – public and non-public – must do their parts to be excellent stewards with the financial resources entrusted to them.  Times are tough.  We’ve got to figure out ways to stretch our dollars.  Time to stick to the basics.  We’ve got to lose some of that fat which has come to too often characterize our budgets.  Discipline and dieting will put Iowa’s schools in better shape.

Paul McKinley is the Iowa Senate Republican Leader

Iowans received more sobering news on the economy late last week. Unemployment ticked up to 6.9 percent with 116,800 Iowans out of work – an increase of 2,600 from the month before.

This news comes as Governor Culver is traveling the state touting his $1.7 billion dollar I-JOBS program that he promised would create 30,000 jobs and spur an economic revitalization of Iowa’s economy. But since unveiling his I-JOBS idea during the Condition of the State address in January 2009, Iowa has actually lost over 30,000 jobs while nearly $1.7 billion has been added to the state’s credit card.

Based on employment numbers from Iowa Workforce Development, the graph below illustrates the month by month unemployment numbers since Governor Culver announced his temporary work program.

Clearly, Culver’s expensive program has failed. Government cannot create jobs – it’s the private sector and small business that is the engine of job growth.

That’s why we need a new direction for Iowa – one that actually puts the focus on private sector job creation and puts Iowans back into good paying jobs in every county and community in this state.

Senate Republicans have a better plan.

Instead of empowering government bureaucrats to pick winners as is the direction taken by Governor Culver and legislative Democrats, Senate Republicans believe we must give entrepreneurs, employers and small business owners the tools they need to not only succeed today – but into the future as well.

Our detailed three point plan involves providing an immediate jolt of adrenaline to Iowa’s economy by offering aggressive tax incentives for hiring more Iowans while also cultivating good ideas and encouraging entrepreneurs to come forward to develop or expand their venture right here in Iowa.

In addition, our plan includes putting together an extensive volunteer commission of business leaders and entrepreneurs from around that state that will be tasked with identifying the onerous barriers and regulations that are holding back growth, development, expansion and job creation in Iowa. The Legislature and governor will need to act on these citizen suggestions.

When Governor Culver took office and legislative Democrats took over both chambers of the Legislature in January of 2007, Iowa’s unemployment was at 3.6 percent. Today it is on the verge of 7 percent.

Last year, Iowa lost 222 factories and two-thirds of Iowa’s counties lost population because of a lack of jobs. Today we remain 49th in the nation in friendliness to job creators according to US News & World Report and 41st according to the very reputable Small Business Survival Index.

We have now seen four years of sky high property taxes, irresponsible spending and generational debt. Year after year, Democrats have discussed and in some instances passed damaging anti-jobs legislation like gutting Iowa’s Right to Work status, decimating our worker’s compensation system, fundamentally altering our collective bargaining methods and implementing a property tax increasing prevailing wage.

We can and must do better. The status quo in Iowa cannot continue.

Senate Republicans know we can experience a 99 county resurgence. Iowa is filled with promise because we have wonderful people in welcoming communities who have a burning passion to build a better Iowa for their families, friends and neighbors.

We must begin to change direction, reignite the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector and welcome the new economy of tomorrow. Let us again put our faith in the people to move Iowa forward instead of allowing government to hold us back.

As always, I welcome hearing from you and can be reached by phone at 515-281-3560 or by e-mail at paul.mckinley@legis.state.ia.us

Paul McKinley
Senate Republican Leader
www.mckinleyforiowa.com
www.facebook.com/paulmckinley
www.twitter.com/mckinleyforiowa

In the Iowa House chamber, there were 58 speakers today, 32 in favor and 28 against House File 2420.

Almost every speaker in favor of the bill had little more to say than “everyone benefits, so everyone should pay”. Not much explanation why someone who does not want to be represented by a union has to pay the union, and why people should be forced to pay to have a job. There was some attempt to explain why unions shouldn’t just drop representing non-members. If I had to sit and listen to just all of the speakers in favor of the bill, I probably would have fallen asleep by the time it was half over due to the redundancy. Mind you, I’m glad that all of those speakers took the time to come and speak, but the argument is pretty simple and not compelling (at least not to me).

Maggie Martin probably stated the supporter’s position best: “Basically we are putting unions in the position of providing services for free This bill rights that wrong.”

One union leader admitted that the ultimate goal is repeal of Right to Work even though such a repeal doesn’t “resonate with Iowans”.

Another supporter (John Neiderbach) said: “Read the bill. This is a very modest bill.” As if partly bad isn’t a problem.

Interesting were the number of people who opposed the bill that one would have expected to be in support of it. At least one democrat who is a business owner, one educator, and a retire union member.

The most compelling positions in opposition to the bill included:

• (I am not sure of the name of the speaker) Many companies looking to come to Iowa will not due to this very bill because they will not even take the time to look at the code and understand that the bill only impacts the public sector (and only the Iowa State Executive Branch of Government).
• Jason White later said that the bill has a “detrimental effect on Iowa business development”. Also explained that companies react even to the discussions of these bills.
• Heather Stancil made a case for the bill being unconstitutional.
• Matt Sexton (Iowa College Republicans) said that Democratic leaders are working against the will of the people of Iowa.
• Dimitri Kesari (National Right To Work Committee) stated what was also tweeted earlier by Representative Nick Wagner: Unions negotiated their way into sole representation of all employees.
• Richard Rogers said: “Most Iowans don’t believe in compulsory anything. This bill is not about fairness, but about power and will be used against the citizens of Iowa. Perhaps employees should be allowed to choose from multiple competing unions.”
• Dave Funk (Republican Candidate for 3rd District US House), a retired union member and opponent of the bill, said “This bill is about liberty, about economic recovery.”

My biggest whine about tonight is that I had to listen to so many people refer to this as a “Small Fee”. This is a $5.3 Million windfall for labor unions, money essentially promised to the unions by Democrats. That’s the driver behind this, not fairness.

There is no legislative mandate for unions to represent everyone, and I agree that perhaps there could be multiple unions competing for employees. It’s a farce to think that unions are “stuck” representing non-members, and it’s just not right that anyone would be required to pay for the opportunity to have a job. But most importantly, we will undoubtedly hamper economic development, JOB development, by passing this bill.

Jason Clayworth captured several more sets of comments here.

1. Persons signing up to testify will be permitted on the House floor during a public hearing.
2. To testify, members of the public will be required to enter the House chamber through the main entrance off the rotunda and will be required to sign-in.
3. Testifiers on the House floor during a public hearing are restricted to the area in the rear of the chamber and may not sit at legislators’ desks or clerks’ desks.
4. Testimony will be received at microphones located in the rear of the House chamber.
5. Each legislator may bring no more than one guest onto the House floor during a public hearing. While on the House floor, the guest must be accompanied by the host legislator at all times.
6. Members of the public who wish to observe the public hearing but not testify must observe from one of the galleries.
7. Persons attending a public hearing on the House floor or in the House galleries must respect the rules of the House and must refrain from disruptive behavior.

Further explanation at the start by Representative Geri Huser (D-District 42) made it clear that any disruption may impact the opportunity for future public forms to be held in the House chamber.

I was fortunate to be the one guest of Representative Erik Helland (R-District 69).  I’m enjoying a seat between both Chris Hagenow (R-District 59) and Erik.