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…

“After carefully considering the whole situation, I stand with my back to the wall. And walking is better, than running away…and crawling ain’t no good at all”

Willie Nelson—Lyrics to “Walking” (1974)

While not known for his astute political analysis, with these lyrics Willie Nelson has managed to perfectly describe the conundrum myself and millions of other voters face in selecting a candidate to support for president amongst the Republican field.

For months now GOPers have been carefully considering the whole situation, and have yet to settle on anyone. With the voting only two weeks away a majority of those undecided now officially are standing with their backs against the wall.

In this regard I am no different—laid here are the reasons I am currently walking, and not running, toward Newt Gingrich. Like any well thought out decision there are three main factors at play—the mind, the gut, and the legitimate reservations. The following is an honest, pull-no-punches account of my thought process for each.

The Mind

The reason why the polls have been a roller coaster in this cycle is fairly simple—you have a massive pool of Conservative voters and not one single, unquestionably consistent Conservative, who could certainly beat President Obama. My sense is that the field does have strong Conservatives, namely Bachmann and Santorum, but neither have been able to garner the support necessary to win the White House—and Ron Paul will have to be addressed in full at some other time. As the polls suggest, the two with the best chance at unseating Obama are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

This being the case, the exercise has come down to a question of who I feel is more Conservative between the two and who has the better chance of successfully vocalizing Conservative philosophy to the general electorate. On both counts my answer is Newt Gingrich. As we have seen in the Republican primary, the debates between President Obama and the Republican nominee are going to be viewed by a record amount of people and will largely be the deciding factor for Independents.

Perhaps no figure in modern political history has more of a gift for the debate stage than Newt Gingrich. Making this an even larger advantage is the mythic narrative that President Obama is some legendary debater. While last cycle he may have gotten the better of Hillary Clinton and John McCain overall, he never blew either off the stage (and managed to lose to both on multiple occasions).

Along with his debate prowess, there are two other things that make me comfortable with the idea of Newt as the nominee and as President. First is his deep understanding and respect for history. Whether it be American or world history, his decision making process would be solidly grounded in the actions and outcomes of past situations. I happen to think that had the filter of history been applied to many of the decisions made by our last two presidents, many of the undesirable results we have seen could have been avoided.

Second is the structure and proven results of the concept of a “Contract with America”. The 1994 contract saw roughly 70% of its content become law—and that was with a Democrat in the White House. Any Republican taking a serious look at his “21st Century Contract with America” would likely agree that achieving even 50% of its content would result in our Country standing on immensely more solid ground than it is currently. Clearly there is no time now to go through the platform item by item, however, you can review it in detail or read a brief highlight of it here. It is only fair that serious Republicans inspect this document before discounting Mr. Gingrich.

The Gut

The biggest source of apprehension I have toward Mitt Romney is his striking similarity to our 43rd president. George W. Bush’s eight year application of a watered down “compassionate Conservatism” did a great deal of damage to the viability of the philosophy. I can’t help but shake the feeling that when inevitably faced with unpredicted situations, a President Romney would not be guided through these times of crisis by Constitutional Conservatism. Instead I see him falling back on the identical political pragmatism that Mr. Bush turned to when the pressure was on.

While certainly not without its own risks, I also prefer Gingrich’s personality to Romney’s in the area of foreign policy. My view is that in general, and especially with the Iranian nuclear situation, many of America’s national security interests can be forwarded through an aggressive posture. Though it is a fine line to walk, putting a reasonable fear into rogue nations could—as proven by Reagan—actually help us avoid potential conflicts. A Romney-foreign-policy approach would likely be strictly by the book (i.e. painfully cautious and deferential), and result in a more-of-the-same outcome. Though I see positives in both approaches, I feel our enemies would have a greater fear of (and hence a greater respect for) a President Gingrich.

At a time when a dramatic move toward the Right is a legitimate possibility, on nearly every issue Mitt Romney is far too timid for my taste. One perfect example is in the area of Federal income tax policy. The enthusiasm throughout the country for major tax reform has never been greater, yet in this climate the proposal offered from Romney is to keep the top rate at 35% and largely leave the current structure intact. Though it could use some tweaking, the Gingrich proposal is for an optional 15% flat tax, where each taxpayer could choose to use the old system or opt for the flat rate. This is emblematic of the level of change the former Speaker is willing to push for—and the type of transformation Mitt Romney will never champion.

The Reservations

The fact that a voter would have reservations about their candidate is only natural. Having said that, the lengthy nature of his list points to why I am walking, and not running, toward Mr. Gingrich.

According to my television and mailbox, and no doubt yours too, not only should Gingrich be checked off our short list—he should be arrested and checked in to Guantanamo Bay. These attacks are largely overblown rubbish, but there are three main factors I view as legitimate reasons for apprehension. Like Romney, Newt’s career includes multiple examples of unsettling “political flexibility”, his past personal life has often been a mess, and a rather large number of his former Republican colleagues have been outspoken against him (noteworthy on this list for me is Tom Coburn, whom I respect greatly).

Quite honestly these things have made the decision a far more anguished one than it has been in the past—or that it ought to be I might add. If I insisted on taking solace it would be found in the fact that while both candidates I view as being able to win the nomination and defeat President Obama have strong negatives—both would be an upgrade for the Country.

The Conclusion

I personally want the Republican Party, and the Country, to move significantly to the Right. I want the 10th Amendment to be respected, the enumerated powers to be followed, and for personal responsibility to once again be required and not optional. I do not see Mitt Romney doing this to the extent I want. In my eyes Newt Gingrich is, as George Will says, the most Conservative candidate who can win.

Like it will for many voters, my decision largely came down to a risk vs. reward ratio—and there is no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney would be the safer choice. Given the circumstances, what America needs right now is a real and powerful constraint on Federal power. Of the nationally viable candidates, Gingrich—and the 21st Century Contract—comes the closest to my vision of a positive American future…For this reason I am willing to roll the dice.

Photo courtesy of Dave Davidson, whose outstanding work can be seen at Prezography.com

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

With a 68% increase in population since 2000, and Bloomberg reporting it is now the fastest growing city in Iowa, there is no doubt that Ankeny is rapidly expanding.

As population over the last few years has shifted to Ankeny, so too has the ideological focus of the Republican Party shifted to the right.  Just how far right this Des Moines suburb, and longtime Republican stronghold, has moved politically will go a long way in determining who wins the Republican primary to represent Iowa’s House District 37.

This impending barometer has been put in play by the candidacy of Tea Party Republican Stacey Rogers, who will be one of at least four Republicans seeking this house district’s nomination.  I recently sat down with Ms. Rogers to discuss her political resume, her ideology, and how she would like to influence the future of HD 37.

The Background

Though she was born in Colorado, Ms. Rogers’ parents grew up on family farms down the road from each other near State Center, and in an ironic twist her mom actually attended high school with fellow HD 37 candidate John Landon.  These roots caused her to return to Iowa during the summers as she was growing up, before eventually leading her to come back to our state for law school. After graduating in three years from Colorado State University she headed back for good and enrolled at the University of Iowa School of Law.

Her time attending law school at the University of Iowa pushed her into the world of politics, a push initialized by being exposed to and surrounded by a level of left wing ideology that took her by surprise.  Having decided to politically engage, she applied and was granted the opportunity to spend a summer working in Arizona for one of the most esteemed Conservative think tanks in the Country—The Goldwater Institute.

In addition to this she has worked as a staffer for Iowa State Senator Mark Chelgren (R-Ottumwa), became active in The Iowa Tea Party, and recently served as Republican Graig Block’s campaign manager in his successful re-election bid to the Ankeny City Council.  She is currently practicing law for the Ankeny based firm Block, Lamberti & Gocke, P.C.

The District

Paramount to gaining an understanding of a candidate is learning how they see their district, where they stand on local issues, and how they analyze their district’s role in the larger state-wide picture.  Ms. Rogers has strong views on all three.

When asked about the district’s positive attributes, she pointed to its unique geographic make-up, “This district has some of Ankeny in it but it also has some rural areas in it, it really is a great sample of Iowa.  The good thing about Ankeny is that it is growing but it still has that extremely small town feel where everybody knows their neighbor.”

On an economic level she commented that, “For the most part, and compared to the way the economy is going overall, Ankeny is doing really, really well.”  Weighing in on the reason for the district’s Republican leanings and general weariness of ever-increasing taxes she noted, “Especially in the northern part of Ankeny, the people are largely living in new housing developments and they clearly worked hard for that money, and they worked for it recently.”

Also making her list of positives is the relative high quality of the school system, something she largely attributes to the area’s residents, “Probably the greatest difference between Ankeny schools and the schools in Des Moines is the amount of parental involvement.”

The school district and community involvement are both things that have been front and center recently as the city’s school board has made the somewhat controversial decision to split the town by simultaneously building two brand new high schools.  Though not under the jurisdiction of the seat she is running for, Ankeny residents would no doubt be curious as to where she stood on this hot-button issue:

“Eventually two high schools were going to be a necessity; the questionable spending was that they somehow needed two identical high schools at the same time.  I would have been against the second high school from the beginning but at this point you really can’t un-ring that bell.  That whole debacle just exposed this community to debt and the threat of more debt that could threaten its status as an engine of economic growth and development right now, because people are not necessarily going to want to continue moving to Ankeny if there is that threat of more bonding.”

While noting the need to heal the rift between more moderate Republicans and the Tea Party, she views this seat as having a particular function in the larger statewide picture:

“Whoever gets elected to this seat is going to have the opportunity to use this seat as a bully pulpit.  We need to make sure we elect a Conservative that understands the importance of this seat, and that they have a chance to be the voice of the true Conservative position.  Somebody under the golden dome needs to draw the line in the sand about what that position really is, and I think too often what happens is that the Republicans who are interested in ‘good governance’ offer the compromise solution up front and give up a lot of ground in that approach.”

Issues From Last Session

The Budget

Even though Republicans controlled two of the three segments of government last session, you can count Ms. Rogers among the large contingent of Conservatives unhappy with the resulting state budget.

At the heart of this displeasure is what she saw as a tactical error by the Governor in structuring our outlays, “I think our budget this year could have been much lower, and that we sacrificed a lot to the idea of two year budgeting.”

Instead of insisting on a two year budget, and eventually bartering in order to achieve it, she would have taken an alternate approach:

 “0% allowable growth was still an increase in funding for schools because it was fully funded, something that the Democrats never did—and we still gave up the 2% allowable growth in the second year in order to get the two year budget.  I would much rather of had the fight about allowable growth again next year because I think people started waking up to the fact that we are actually giving the schools more money by fully funding them.”

Commercial Property Taxes

The overwhelming evidence and the inescapable mushrooming nature of Iowa’s commercial property tax code resulted in a political rarity last session—partial bi-partisan agreement.  The fact that nationally Iowa ranks in the top 10 in every type of property tax levied on commercial and industrial property, and that The Tax Foundation rated Iowa as the 45th worst business tax climate in the Country, led to all three players in our state government laying tax reform proposals on the table.

On the Republican side were competing proposals from the Governor and the House of Representatives.  The Governor’s plan would have ultimately taken a bigger bite out of the bill currently paid by Iowa businesses and would have been the one a Rep. Rogers would have embraced, “I would probably have supported the Governor’s plan.  It went deeper and I think that if you are going to do property tax reform then you need to do it all the way, and I think that his plan was a tougher stand than the House Republicans.”

To read this articles conclusion, dealing with pending issues facing Iowa and analysis of this race, click here for part 2.

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

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

This piece was written by Justin Arnold-Editor of The Conservative Reader:Iowa and John Bloom-former Chairman of the Polk County Republican Party and Conservative Reader contributor.

Since the field of Republican candidates seemingly spent the entire month of September participating in high-profile debates, one would think these exercises would eventually become monotonous and lose their luster. Proving how high the stakes are, and how intense the opposition to our current president is, the exact opposite has been the case.

Instead what has transpired is that Republican excitement has counter-acted the law of diminishing returns. This has been proven by both the dramatic surges and plunges of the candidates following the debates and in the number of people watching them (over 12 million watched the last Fox debate).

That being said, in terms of structure and presentation this debate was a shell of all those held prior. The format of the candidates all sitting around a table and speaking almost exclusively about the economy had promise, in theory, but proved not to be executed well.

The two hours were mostly filled by switching quickly from candidate to candidate and topic to topic so fast that little depth was achieved and distinctions between the field on specifics were never fully fleshed out. By and large it created a scattershot feel and no real memorable moments. One thing however that I will always remember after this is that it is clearly time for the debate moderator, and PBS mainstay, Charlie Rose to be put out to pasture.

Here is how we assess each candidates performance and how they helped or hurt thier cause on this night.

The Winners

Mitt Romney (John)

Mitt Romney continued his string of strong debate performances.  He was clearly comfortable and confident.  He looked and sounded presidential.  The focus of the debate was on the economy, which is his strength.  He will most likely improve his standing in the poll.  Tactically, he did an excellent job of focusing his negative comments on President Obama’s weaknesses, which is the right tactic for a front runner.  He responded to the questions, although sometimes reframing the question to his liking.   On substance, he stayed at a pretty general level: leadership, experience, standing on principle.  He generally demonstrated a strong grasp of the subjects discussed.

Best moment: “I won’t have to ask Timothy Geithner how the economy works”.

Herman Cain (John)

Herman Cain had a strong evening.  He has a calm, wise, reassuring demeanor.  His deep experience as a corporate leader provides a solid substitute for his lack of political leadership.  He is strong on economic issues.  His 9-9-9 plan has captured more attention than any other proposal by any candidate.  Tactically, he focused his challenges to Mr. Romney, which is exactly the right thing to do. He responded to the questions effectively.  On substance, he remained very focused on his tax proposal, which was in part driven by the lower tier candidates attacks on it.

Best moment: In response about the Bloomberg analysts claim that 9-9-9 would not raise as much revenue as he says and that poor people would pay more for food and medicine; “The problem with that analysis is that it is wrong!”.  Then he backed up his rebuttal concisely and effectively.

Newt Gingrich (Justin)

Though he fared well this performance was a tale of two halves for Newt.

He started out red-hot forcefully answering questions, demanding that Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner be fired, and often interjecting himself into the conversation.  Whether this was done intentionally to counter-act the unfair stereotype of him being apathetic I do not know, what I do know was that it was working.

He called for the release of all decision documents of the Federal Reserve between the years 2008-2010, and rightly pointed out that all the spending cuts written into the debt ceiling compromise could all be undone by votes in Congress.  In addition he was strong on Medicare and fearlessly reaffirmed his position, backing the “controversial” claim from Sarah Palin, that Obamacare would in essence create “death panels”.

As strong and assertive as he was in the initial segments, the second half saw him tone it down a few notches and blend back in with the rest of the field.  He no doubt had a good showing but considering how well he started off, and how well the format suited his strengths, one couldn’t help but feel he returned to the locker room having left some points on the field of play.

One observation that I found to be stunning was that Newt went the entire two hours without once mentioning his newly unveiled “21st Century Contract with America”.  Having just rolled out the document that will serve as the blueprint for his candidacy one would think he would have pointed to it or mentioned it in at least half the answers.  I felt this was a huge tactical error and a missed opportunity to at least direct some people to his website to take a closer look at his platform.

As I have made known before I think that Newt is in this for the long haul, he will get stronger support as the months pass, and is easily one of the top three candidates Republicans have in this race.

His status as winner on this night is based on his aggressive and energetic first half as well as the fact that few others stood out.  In short, my view is that this was a good performance …but one that could have been great.

Rick Santorum (John)

Rick Santorum did not have many opportunities.   As in earlier debates, he took full advantage of his limited time to demonstrate his knowledge of the issues and relevance to mainstream America.  Tactically, he targeted Herman Cain with challenges, which seems exactly right given his appeal to voters who are more conservative.   He did not get many questions, but he did respond competently and occasionally used the opportunity to expand on his other priorities.   On substance, his focus on restoring blue collar jobs by eliminating corporate taxes on manufacturers has broad-based appeal.

Best moment:  In response to the moderator’s observation that the U.S. has a higher % of families living in poverty than at any prior time while the top 1% have seen their incomes grow by 300%, he said  “The breakdown of the American Family is the reason for the disparity in income.  5% of 2 parent families in poverty, 30% of 1 parent families.”  He was exactly right.  The crowd acknowledged this powerful comment.

The Maintainers

Michelle Bachmann (John)

Michele Bachman came across as competent, passionate and graceful.  As her poll numbers have dropped over the past 6 weeks, her debate opportunities have diminished.  She did not take full advantage of her limited opportunities.  She has a habit of skirting the questions and substituting lines from her stump speech.  Tactically, she attacked Perry, which might have been wise a month ago, but not any longer.  On substance, she continues to beat the repeal drum (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.) but has not offered much insight to her ideas on healthcare and financial reform.

Best moment:  In comments about Obamacare, I am paraphrasing “He (President Obama) plans in 10 years for Mediare to collapse and everyone will fall into Obamacare, where 15 political appointees will make life and death health decisions for all Americans”.  She is right

The Losers

Rick Perry (Justin)

So I feel free to speak bluntly afterword, let me just get this out of the way right from the top.  Like millions of other red-blooded Conservatives, when Rick Perry entered this race I was ready to instantly embrace and fully support him.  Unfortunately, and again like millions of Conservatives, I am unable to do either.

Simply put this performance will likely prove to be the final nail in the coffin for Mr. Perry.  What he needed to do and what he did do were not even in the same hemi-sphere.  Perhaps he suffered from getting too much hype preceding his entrance, but the fact remains that he is a poor candidate by any measure.  It’s hard to imagine an honest analysis concluding anything other than that he is a vastly inferior candidate to a Rick Santorum or a Tim Pawlenty, let alone Mitt Romney.

Relative to his poll numbers he did not get a lot of air time, which considering his performance was probably a good thing.  He started the night off by talking about domestic energy production and pretty much continued talking about it, regardless of the subject at hand, for the evening’s duration.  The most awkward example of this was when he interjected himself into a discussion on China manipulating their currency to say that this topic wouldn’t matter so much if we started drilling for oil and gas…strange.

Perhaps the most inexplicable thing of all was him announcing that over the next three days he will be rolling out his economic plan, though he had nothing of significance to say about it when repeatedly asked… not even a few bullet points.  So, in summary, he was desperate for a good showing, was in a debate specifically about the economy on the National stage, has an economic plan— and chose not to talk about it.  Unbelievable.

At this point it appears his confidence in these settings is so damaged that he is unable to even tread water let alone diminish Mitt Romney.  He was given chance after chance, including being able to ask Romney a direct question, but to no avail.

The reason there is not really any substantive analysis on his performance is that he really didn’t say anything of substance the entire night.  Even when responding to typical campaign questions his answers are vague, standard-fare, and far from memorable.

I have heard many confounded Texas politicos say that the Rick Perry they know is not the man that keeps appearing on these debate stages.  I don’t know about that one way or the other but what I do know is that this guy will not sniff the nomination.

Jon Huntsman (Justin)

In most other years Jon Huntsman strikes me as a man who would easily be in the upper tier—this is not one of those years.  His showing was similar to most of his other ones, that is to say solid and steady but far short of impactful.

The problem he seems to have is an inability to aggressively attack and call out President Obama the way some of the more fire-brandish candidates on stage are able to do.  Whether this is due to him previously working for the president I am unsure, but in this cycle coming off as less aggressive than Bachmann, Santorum, Newt, and even Romney is not a good place to be.

While he was mostly solid I found his response on China manipulating their currency, an area where he has expertise, to be strangely inadequate.  His apparent belief is that we should be able to get a large group of elected officials together (on the Chinese side I use the word “elected” loosely) and essentially “talk it out”.  This issue cropping up right now should be the perfect opportunity for him to communicate a solution and a path forward on an issue he is intensely familiar with.  Instead he sounded more like Obama from 2008, who tried to replace true foreign policy positions with statements like ‘I will sit down without pre-conditions and talk things out with Iran’.

I think Huntsman was counting on getting more traction out of his record as governor of Utah but apparently people are not buying it.  You could put me in this group as I am basically unresponsive to the suggestion that someone should be president because Utah had a 2.4% unemployment rate or that Texas has added a million jobs in the last 10 years.

It strikes me, and apparently others, that making these parallels would be akin to me running for police commissioner of New York City by saying ‘you should just look at my long record of controlling crime in Beverly Hills’.

He is classified as a loser on this list primarily because he is running out of time to make an impact—and he certainly did not make one on this night.

Ron Paul (Justin)

A few months back it appeared that Ron Paul may have been able to turn this presidential bid into something more significant than his 2008 fringe run.  As the campaign has worn on, however, that promise seems to be all but gone.

While a broader portion of the Republican electorate may indeed be in the mood for a candidate that is unpolished and nontraditional, they are going to need more than this.  The only thing that Mr. Paul was able to communicate was something that all Republicans know by now—he hates the Federal Reserve and he wants them to be audited and then promptly abolished.  Ok we get it, but this race is way too competitive to waste a two hour debate essentially saying little besides this.

He took consistent aim at former Fed board member Herman Cain, at one point calling him a “true insider”, and had a few quasi-kind words to say about Paul Volcker.  The limited time he did receive was spent talking about the recklessness of creating economic bubbles through government intervention in the private sector.

The frustrating thing about this, and his campaign in general, is that there are many more benefits to Libertarianism than he is able to effectively communicate to the American people.  Having heard him speak numerous times and explain his positions quite well, I think it is as simple as the short 30 second format of debate responses not suiting his style.  His positions are ones that need to be explained in a fundamental and succinct way and he often fails to make the best case possible in the short time required.

The conclusion that I have come to is that the Libertarian ideology needs a more dynamic personality and a more nimble-footed torch bearer (for example I contend that his son would be polling at double the number Ron is).   The day this occurs I believe that this strain of Conservatism will have an even bigger impact on the National dialogue—until that day its effect will be much smaller than it has the potential to be.

His failure to develop a complete platform and convincingly communicate his unique message at this late stage in the race finally causes me to drop him from a maintainer and place him for the first time in losing category…I can already hear the brutal e-mail response coming in.

Updated from the 1994 version, this new contract will serve as the backbone of his campaign and its acceptance or rejection will determine his fate one way or the other.

In the world of presidential politics such fate is largely decided by three things—the style, the substance, and the politics. Here is a brief analysis of all three.

The Style

By any objective measure this event was a success for the former speaker. It displayed a candidate and a campaign that, at a minimum, is hitting its stride and indeed may be ready to become a major player in the race going forward.

Standing on a small stage at the bottom of a room that can be best described as a large movie theatre, Newt showcased many of the positive characteristics that have marked his long political career. He spoke for an hour without a teleprompter or notes and smoothly communicated his message to the audience while appearing very comfortable in his own skin.

The setting was remarkably similar to a college lecture hall and his experience as a professor no doubt factored into his comfort level. Much like his strong debate performances of late, this setting played to his strengths and the result was a candidate able to speak to a variety of issues in a succinct, relaxed, and presidential fashion.

The Substance

After being presented the outline for his new “contract”, one thing is certainly clear—this is a campaign that will not lack grandeur.

Quickly letting the audience know how high he thinks the stakes are, he explained the reasoning behind the large scale of his vision by saying “countries can die without adequate leadership”.

By and large the 21st Century Contract with America is a sweeping document of declared intent. In most cases the solutions he outlines are intentionally vague as his plan is to slowly codify specifics as the campaign progresses. Following a “national conversion”, the aim is to have the contract fully fleshed out by September 27th of next year.

His solutions are largely modern day Conservative Republican fare (not a bad thing), whose main thrusts are to inject simplicity and choice into the dealings that we as citizens have with government. Any American serious about vetting the Republican candidates needs to read through the document on their own (availiable here), but here is an overview on a few major issues.

His first order of business would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a free market set of solutions to bring the cost of insurance down. The overall structure of our health care system would basically remain in place while insurance policies would be made portable, able to be purchased across state lines, and able to be optionally blended with personal health savings accounts (even in Medicare and Medicaid). These things along with tort reform and digitalizing medical records would attempt to radically decrease premiums without the use of mandates.

He would work to strengthen Social Security while keeping it at the Federal level and push for a voluntary option for young people to put a portion of their contributions into a Social Security savings account. The owner of this account could then choose to take this money and retire (or not retire) at any age they wished.

Perhaps the most interesting areas of this document come under the headings of taxes and immigration.

His business tax proposals are to reduce the corporate tax to 12.5%, abolish all capital gains and estate taxes, and allow 100% write offs in one year for all new equipment purchases. Personal income taxes would be handled by offering a choice to each citizen to either pay under the current system or file with a newly offered one page option. The one page would consist of taking your income, subtracting a standard deduction, taking a deduction for charitable giving and home ownership (if applicable), and multiplying that number by a single set percentage (which is left unspecified).

The headline on his immigration initiative is that there would be a deadline date for securing the border by January 1st, 2014 (“secure” is left undefined). Though it is not stated the inclusion of a firm date strongly suggests that following “securing” the border would be some form of amnesty. While a few years ago this idea would have been a non-starter for a large block of Republicans, currently the reality seems to have set in that this type of a trade-off is the only way to deal with this problem and finally move forward.

The Politics

Skeptics of the recent Gingrich campaign surge could doubt that he has the fiery sizzle to overcome his slow start and existing baggage— and be justified.  Meanwhile critics of his 21st Century Contract with America could attack the plan for being a little light on specifics (especially since Newt is not prone to lack of minutia)—and attack they may.  That being said, going forward this campaign has many more advantages to exploit than disadvantages to fear.

Here are six factors that point to his candidacy not only continuing to build on its current momentum, but that also have the potential to thrust him into the top three in a short amount of time.

#1) His mastery of the debate format, the reason that he has recently gained ground, will be an ever-growing advantage moving forward.  As the number of candidates on stage dwindles he will be allotted more and more time and will be more easily compared to the less capable candidates.

#2) Republicans are likely to recognize that a supremely informed, smooth, and skilled debater will neutralize Obama’s biggest advantage (smooth flowery rhetoric).

#3) Now that he has a specific doctrine to anchor his campaign the focus will shift there and drift away from the personal issues that previously have been sucking up oxygen and damaging his campaign.

#4) A close examination of his policy proposals reveals that he has a large number of Tea Party friendly stances and would garner their support, while not being too linked to them to hurt him in a general election.  In 2012 Republican politics this is what you call “the sweet spot”.

#5) The concepts of personal choice, competition, deadlines, fresh ideas, and lower taxes that are found throughout his platform will all appeal to true political independents—namely those that voted for Obama last time thinking that’s what they would be getting.

#6)  As the race gets closer and more real, Republicans have a track record of deciding on the grounds of experience and perceived wherewithal to win…McCain anyone?  Consider this— it’s easy to make the argument that he is as capable, if not more so, than Mitt Romney, while it’s hard to argue that he is not more Conservative.

The bottom line politically is that Newt stacks up well to the rest of the field in many categories while largely lapping them in depth and substance.  As the race wears on he, oddly enough, finds himself with many advantages to gain from and plenty of time to do it…and he certainly doesn’t have to worry about peaking too soon!

In terms of the release of the new contract and the impact it will have on his campaign the analysis is fairly simple.  The concept of a contract with the American people was a great idea and a brilliant political vehicle in 1994…and it still is in 2011.

Photo Courtesy of Prezography.com

In the interest of adding perspective, here is a brief overview of Senator Whitver’s political and business careers: He joined the Iowa Senate this year by virtue of winning a special election to fill the seat of Larry Noble, first beating five other Republicans in a truncated primary and then defeating Democrat John Calhoun (63%-36%). The district covers most of the northern half of Polk County including the Des Moines suburbs of Ankeny and Johnston, as well as Grimes, Polk City, Alleman, and Elkhart.

He is a former wide receiver for the Iowa State Cyclones and, in addition to being in the Senate, owns a three-location athletic training business called Acceleration Iowa, was the Offensive Coordinator for the Iowa Barnstormers last season, and is a law student at Drake University (no this is not a misprint… this is all in the same year).

 The Interview

At a glance it would be easy to say that the 2011 Iowa legislative session was a disappointment, as it saw high ranking agenda items from both political parties ultimately produce no legislation. As usual, however, the real story lies a few layers beneath the surface and, especially from a Conservative Republican viewpoint, is found by looking at and answering the question of why these things didn’t get done.

Taxes

Without a doubt, commercial and residential property tax relief was one of the few issues to truly burn white-hot during the session. All three legislative players had a plan on the table prescribing varying levels of aggressiveness in lowering Iowan’s taxes. The Governor’s plan was the most robust, followed by a more temperate approach from House Republicans, while the Senate Democrats’ plan was far tamer than the other two.

Reflecting just how high profile and high priority this issue was, Sen. Whitver regards his “no” vote as the most important one he cast in the session.

“I think the vote I am most proud of, and probably the toughest one I took, was on property taxes. That is something I campaigned on and something that needs to be done to help small businesses. The Senate Democrats brought forth a plan that I felt was not a good plan. It wasn’t nearly strong enough to do anything and was a long way away from what the House Republicans and the Governor were proposing. So it’s easy to sit down there and say ‘Well, it’s on property taxes so I am just going to vote yes and pass it.’ I was one of four Republicans that voted no, because I felt it wasn’t good enough, and I don’t want to put my name on a bill, even if it has the right title, if it wasn’t good enough. Because once you pass property tax reform, and it’s not a good bill, then it would be off the table next year, and the year after. So you don’t want to pass it for the sake of passing it.”

Beyond it being too small, he also saw the Democrat plan as a vehicle to allow local towns and counties to avoid tightening their belts and reducing their property taxes. “It’s basically taking our State income tax and our State sales tax and giving it to businesses in the form of a tax credit—as opposed to actually lowering taxes. I wasn’t a big fan of that tax shift.”

Sharing his philosophy of not settling on this issue, and certainly providing some welcome company, was Governor Branstad.

“To me the Governor showed a lot of confidence and leadership on this issue. Most governors, especially ones that don’t have the experience and the confidence he has would say, ‘Well, I said I wanted a property tax bill and I’ll take what I can get.’ Instead he said, ‘You know what, it’s not the one I want. We’ll come back and either do it in a special session or next year, but I’m not just going to try and save face and take whatever I can get.’ So I was happy about that.”

Mental Health Reform

Another issue that remained unresolved by the session was reforming the state’s mental health care system, otherwise known as SF 525. To the casual observer this amounted to a mere failure—true in the sense that no reform got passed but, once again, a look at why this was the case unearths undeniable evidence that a strong Conservative presence is asserting itself at the State House.

More than any other issue, this bill split the Senate Republican caucus, with ten voting in favor, nine voting against, and five not voting at all. The eventual fate of the bill was that it was assigned to a committee for further study. When asked about this divide in the Party and the debate in general, Sen. Whitver laid out the issue like this:

“Part of it is a rural-urban divide. There is a lot of agreement that redesigning the mental health care system needs to be done. The difference is, do we want the state to take control of it, or can we let the counties keep control. Being from Polk County, we offer a lot of services that maybe Adams County does not, because they have 4,000 people. If they want to design a system where every county has to offer the same services they are not going to take every county down to Adams County levels, they are going to bring all other counties up to Polk County levels. And at the end of the day it just looks like something that’s going to greatly expand the cost and scope of government, and I think a lot of us weren’t comfortable with that.”

The insight that this answer provides into the thought process of at least a sizeable chunk of Senate Republicans should bolster the resolve of Conservatives state-wide. It is hard to imagine a more positive indicator that Iowa Republicans are serious about actually achieving a smaller government—and not just talking about it.

Realize, especially on an emotionally sensitive topic like this one, what the specific logic they approached this issue with proves—they get it. They are viewing all things through a prism of justified skepticism, asking themselves, “Does this bill have the potential to explode into an over costly, ever expanding leviathan?” This type of foresight, had it been displayed by the Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson administrations, could have sparred us much of the pain we are currently feeling at the Federal level.

The Reality of the Minority

In short, the reality of the minority is that you are forced to judge success differently. A look at the 293 votes Sen. Whitver cast reveals a splintered wasteland of votes cast in vain. As the roll calls of losing 26-24, 24-23, 26-21 began to pile up during the session, one has to wonder if the Senator would rather have been back running 5 yard drag routes into 240-pound Big 12 linebackers…minus his pads.

Making matters worse for this particular minority was being under the thumb of Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs), who is renowned for both his liberalism and his penchant for using parliamentary maneuvers to avoid votes on hot-button issues. It didn’t take long for Sen. Whitver to experience this approach, “The first thing I saw when I got there was him changing the rules to not allow a majority of the Senators to bring up a bill.” When asked his thoughts on these tactics he joined the near unanimous chorus of Republican anger towards Gronstal, saying, “The ones that I really had a problem with were the ones that had the votes to pass. On same sex marriage, I think we had the votes to bring it up with a majority, and then to get it passed.”

Despite these circumstances, Sen. Whitver deploys a perspective that allows him to take it all in stride:

“Yeah it’s frustrating in the short term, but I have taken a longer view about being in the Senate. It’s a four year term and if I was just looking at the next election I could say, ‘Ok, I’ll vote for that property tax bill,’ but I’m going to look at the big picture. A lot of those 26-24 votes draw a line in the sand and say, ‘This is what Democrats want and this is what Republicans want, and this is our agenda going forward.’ So yeah, it is frustrating to go in there every day and vote no and see something pass, but in the long term I think we are setting up our agenda and what we are trying to accomplish pretty nicely.”

In a political minority, this is what success looks like.

Session Summary

In a state that President Obama carried by 9.5 points, and without a majority in both chambers, fully implementing a Conservative agenda was simply not realistic. In this scenario much of your work is done around the edges and in ensuring bad bills don’t pass. Sen. Whitver summed up the inroads the Party made, and how he sees the political landscape going forward, the following way:

“I think we accomplished three major things, though bills didn’t necessarily get passed out of it. The Democrats admitted that we needed commercial property tax relief and were passing bills talking about it. They admitted we needed the late term abortion bill, they didn’t pass the bill we wanted, but they were on record saying that we need to do something about it, and they agreed we need to limit spending. So three of our major priorities, they agreed with. We didn’t get the exact bills we wanted, but I think that shows that our message is the right message.”

Not only is it the right message, more importantly, a look inside the reasoning behind the votes shows it is a genuine message backed by principal and strong will.

The real story for Conservative Iowans is found in uncovering the reason why more bills failed to pass on major issues. In the case of tax reform, “not good enough” was the why. In the case of SF 525, apprehension to expansive government and cautious foresight were the why.

I think that all concerned Republicans would agree that if the fight is waged on the principals of lower taxes and smaller government, we will gladly take a draw…for now.

Part 2 of this interview will publish Monday August 8th.  Among the issues it will cover are: the battles looming once the next session is gavaled in, the state of public education in Iowa, the politics of Medicaid, and Iowa’s illegal immigration problem.

Click Here To Read Part 2

I am delighted that the President recognizes the positive impact private sector manufacturers are having on the economy, but what he failed to mention as a part of his visit was that he is advocating for repeal of the Last-In, First-Out accounting method, which would devastate businesses in our country, cost workers their jobs, and hurt our recovering economy.

The Last-In, First-Out accounting method, better know as LIFO, is a textbook accounting method that has been used by businesses for over 70 years. LIFO allows businesses to manage inventories in a way that helps protect assets from the costs associated with inflation. As a part of this method, businesses may incur a tax liability that has been held over from one year to the next, which is called a LIFO reserve.

President Obama proposes that the LIFO reserve should be eliminated and that businesses should pay a retroactive tax on this liability. Estimates put the amount the federal government would stand to collect from repealing LIFO at between $50-100 billion dollars.

President Obama says that he is only trying to end a tax break for oil companies and billionaires, so he can reduce deficit spending. And, while I applaud his, and other, noble efforts to reduce deficit spending and lower our national debt, repealing LIFO is precisely the wrong way to go about it.

The President and so many others who are advocating for the repeal of LIFO don’t seem to understand that this one time shot of revenue would have a chilling effect on the recovering U.S. economy and devastate businesses that use LIFO, many of which are manufacturers and wholesalers.

President Obama is correct that many of the largest U.S. oil and energy companies use LIFO. But so do many of our largest manufacturers and wholesalers, such as Archer Daniels Midland, Caterpillar, U.S. Steel, Nucor, Wal-Mart, and Dupont. Alcoa, the same company that President Obama praised during his visit to Iowa, has the 10th largest LIFO reserve in the country.

And many Iowa businesses would be hurt by LIFO repeal. John Deere, Meredith Publishing, Sukup Manufacturing, and Winnebago Industries, all use LIFO. So do farm equipment dealers, automobile dealers, grocery stores, and many other main street businesses.

A repeal of LIFO would have a huge impact on jobs as well. Employers would have to scramble to pay retroactive taxes and would be forced to lay off workers, cut health care benefits, stop contributions to 401(k) plans, and cancel planned hiring.

President Obama should take LIFO repeal off the table as part of his deficit reduction talks with Congress. And, if he won’t, Congress should refuse to pursue LIFO repeal as a part of the negotiations process for the sake of our country.

Reprinted from The Retailer, an Iowa Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association Publication, by permission.

A favorite saying of both political parties these days is that “elections have consequences”—2010 proved that so do primaries. For Republicans no past event has had a bigger impact on the eventual major players and the shape of the fiscal debate’s battlefield than the primaries preceding the 2010 mid-term elections.

Though history now, you may recall at that time an internal debate was raging amongst Republicans. Many influential Conservative thinkers, including Charles Krauthammer, joined a large number of high ranking members of the Republican establishment in warning against selecting “unconventional”, mostly Tea Party backed, candidates to compete against Democrats in liberal leaning districts.

Though admittedly unappealing, this camp made the case that in selected states it would be wiser to support more moderate Republicans who had a greater chance of winning in traditional Democratic strong holds. They particularly took issue with Christine O’ Donnell in Delaware, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, and Sharon Angle in Nevada, all of whom went on to win their primaries but lose in the general election.

While the stand was principled, harnessing a populist movement is difficult, and there is no guarantee a more main stream Republican would have won, it is fair to at least consider this rejection of political pragmatism as an over reach by the Tea Party… and one that had painful consequences.

Working without anesthesia, Dr. Hindsight unmercifully reopens the wounds when one considers how much better Republicans would be positioned with just four more Senate seats. Having a majority in this body to go along with the one already had in the House would have provided Republicans a massive strategic advantage. Specifically, it would have allowed them to not only pass unified bills on spending cuts and the budget, but to bypass the Senate buffer the President currently enjoys and send the bills directly to his desk. Removing this Senate buffer would have enabled Republicans to repeatedly, and at will, draw him out on targeted issues. Imagine a scenario in which every week he was forced to either agree and sign a bill, or veto it and go on record resisting specific cuts.

Any Democratic strategist would tell you that either of these actions would be vastly damaging to his re-election bid. Should he sign, his base would trample themselves in disgusted exodus, while a veto would leave him constantly defending unpopular expenditures, and require him to personally counter-offer with specific proposals (not his strong suit). Such extended exposure on vulnerable ground would have in essence reworded the old political axiom “sunlight is the best disinfectant” into “sunlight is the best infectant”.

In spite of these lost opportunities, snapping out of the past and returning to the present finds Republicans still in very good shape. Though it includes a few head scratchers, the polling data on long term budget issues strongly favors the GOP position. The best news is provided by the findings on the debate’s two most fundamental questions: Are budget deficits and the National debt widely perceived as problems? And, do people feel that success from Republican plans is fundamentally possible?

As to the first, a CBS News Poll (March 18-21,2011-m.o.e=+-3) found that 68% of respondents felt that the budget deficit was a “serious problem”, while another 26% termed it “somewhat serious”. Only 5% thought it was “not too serious”.

While beyond promising, perhaps the better news comes from a Bloomberg National Poll (March 4-7, 2011-m.o.e=+-3.1) which asked “Do you think it is, or is not possible to bring down the deficit substantially without raising taxes?” The results reveal a clear path to victory. 61% felt that it is possible, while only 37% thought it was not. This is critical because not raising taxes is both the exact approach taken by all the Republican plans, as well as one of the main criticisms leveled against them by opponents.

While it is true historically that the particulars of a proposal are less popular than its concept, starting with numbers this high leaves room for weathering the inevitable loss of points forthcoming now that specifics of the plans have been revealed. If the caustic attacks on the plans as being “extreme” are able to be zeroed out by the number of converted skeptics, there likely would still be ample room to compromise with Democrats on some points, which for passage in 2012 is an absolute must.

While looking back at what could have been is painful, the opportunity to win is still very much within reach. Given that the Tea Party is solely responsible for the fact that we are even having this debate, it is hard to criticize it. That being said, it is wise to note the times that the movement’s fierce purism creates a double-edged sword.

We will never know if different Republican primary candidates would have resulted in a Senate majority, but we do know that winning on an issue this big will require both strategy and some compromise. Going forward it will be fascinating to see to what extent the Tea Party tolerates each to be in play, if at all.

Sometimes the most nuanced political analysis is worthless and the whole issue comes down to a simple question. This appears to be just such an issue and the question that victory hinges on is: “Do the American people believe that remaining on the current path will end in a financial disaster?”

For the reasons given above, if I was looking at this and was a gambling man—that faint sound you hear would be my chips…smoothly sliding across felt.