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

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

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 will get to Senator Paul, the evenings keynote speaker, momentarily but first let us briefly deal with the atmosphere and the purpose of the night’s event—recognizing the up and comers in the Iowa Republican Party.  The crowd of 300-400 took to their seats in the warm, ornate theatre of the Hoyt Sherman Place largely to celebrate the impressive and hard won gains by Iowa Republicans in the last election cycle.  The program included very short remarks from Senate Leader Paul McKinley, House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Party Chairman Matt Strawn, and Governor Terry Branstad.  Following Governor Branstad, Senator Chuck Grassley was brought up to introduce Senator Paul.  I will spare you of the particulars, as the real story lay in the last two speakers, but will apprise you of a few things of note that did happen during the body of the program.

Believe it or not a quasi-disco atmosphere was attempted to be created, which was odd due to the advanced mean age of those in attendance.  Thanks to a mirror ball hung from the ceiling, each speaker took to the stage under a shower of colored lights as the venue’s sound system blasted a song of their choosing.   The “Rising Stars,” though some were in attendance, were mainly celebrated through videos which showed clips of them at the Statehouse telling the camera what they do for a living and why they chose to run for office.  The crowd largely sat silent for the videos, with the exception of small outbursts of cheering at the appearances of Kim Pearson, Kent Sorenson, and Jack Whitver.

Thirty-one year old Secretary of State Matt Schultz provided the evenings first shot of energy with a robust presentation that included a fiery defense of his signature issue, requiring a photo ID be shown before voting.  Party Chair Matt Strawn followed, in a warm and charismatic style, with a few words about how the party had sought out principled candidates to run, and emphasized that a Conservative philosophy is critical to the State’s future.  Most interestingly he applauded Matt Schultz for his hard stance on the voter ID proposal, signaling that the Party itself is digging in for a fight on this issue.  Governor Branstad spoke for roughly two minutes, mainly about the economy.  He vowed to veto any one year budget proposals that may get sent to him and declared that “Iowa is back open for business.”

And now ladies and gentlemen . . .The main event.

The saying that “politics often makes for strange bedfellows” is usually used in referencing politicians of opposing parties that find themselves in an odd alliance.  The surge of a more libertarian-tinged Republicanism represented by the Tea Party, however, has created an increasing number of strange bedfellows inside the GOP tent.  This was on full display Saturday night in the somewhat strange decision to have Chuck Grassley introduce Rand Paul to the stage.  Beyond the obvious, a prominent role on a night of “Rising Stars” given to a man, although beloved, who was first elected to Iowa government in 1958, it is hard to imagine a more antithetical Republican to Rand Paul than Chuck Grassley.  This is not to say that Republicans ever will, or should be, in lock step on every issue, but a brief glance at Grassley’s career reveals countless fundamental breaks with Rand Paul’s particular ideological philosophy.  Not to belabor the point but this is a list that includes, and is certainly not limited to, the following:

Senator Grassley is an ardent supporter and fighter for Federal ethanol subsidies, he proposed a Constitutional Amendment in 2009 to prohibit flag burning, and most notably was one of twenty Republican co-sponsors on a Senate bill in 1993 that would have mandated that all Americans have health insurance.  On the last point it could be argued that this was done as a Republican response/alternative to the Clinton administration’s proposed “Hillary Care,” but doing so perfectly illustrates the stark contrast between the two Senators.  Whether you agree with it or not Rand Paul is not interested in, nor is he willing, to alter an ideological principal based on a current political reality.  A debate can be had on the wisdom of this approach, and the point can surely be made that not engaging in this way while in the minority can result in a more damaging piece of legislation eventually being passed.   But if one is to get an accurate picture of Rand Paul it is essential to know that compromise in this fashion is absent from his genetic make-up.

Senator Grassley entered stage-left to an enthusiastic round of applause from the audience.  The high-mark of his speech, and the loudest applause, came when he delivered a stern message to U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner, who is in the midst of budget cutting negotiations with Congressional Democrats.  To Boehner Grassley said in a raised voice, “Listen Mr. Speaker, we ran on a platform of cutting $100 billion, and were going to cut a $100 billion.”  Following a short, at times unsteady, few minutes that included multiple obligatory jokes about his age, he gave the floor to Senator Paul.

As was his custom during his Senate campaign, Paul hit the stage to AC/DC’s song “TNT,” and started with a few gracious words for Senator Grassley.  Normally at a political party event like this you would take kind and complimentary words being thrown back and forth amongst the speakers as standard procedure.  Although the pleasantries were exchanged on this night, taking it as a given would have been a mistake.  In addition to being an outspoken critic of past Republican Congresses, Senator Paul spent upwards of 15% of the text in his recently published book “The Tea Party Goes To Washington” brutalizing Republicans with a near prideful zeal that would even raise the eyebrow of Keith Olbermann.  Likely to the benefit of the audience, these kind remarks to Senator Grassley signaled that Senator Paul had self-imposed a “no fly zone” on fellow Republicans for the evening.

Senator Paul delivered his twenty-two minute address with no podium and without notes.  His delivery was very smooth and the concept of his speech was very well thought out.  Anyone who has heard his father before would quickly realize that he is a much better public speaker than his dad.  The premise of a large portion of his speech was to use relatively obscure stories from American history and weave them into the issues of the present in order to make his points and to answer questions that he, rightfully, assumed the audience would have about him.  Though it was not asked, one such question he answered was if he would compromise while in Washington.  He happens to sit in “The Great Compromiser” Henry Clay’s old desk in the Senate, and he used Clay’s story of “compromising” in agreeing to the expansion and extension of slavery in order to preserve the Union.  If choosing this particularly horrific compromise as his example was not enough to make his position known, before leaving the topic he challenged the audience to ask themselves, “Is sometimes compromising really a misplaced ideal?”

He then subtly addressed the unease that he creates, even amongst Conservatives, by telling the story of a doctor from Boston who, against the pleadings of the town’s medical community, saved countless people by putting into practice the medical procedure of inoculation.  The doctor had enough faith in the eventual result to try it on his own son.  By doing so he saved his son’s life, which ultimately led to the procedure become standard practice for all future generations.  He summarized the story, along with the defense of his approach to politics, by saying, “It took someone brave enough and bold enough to step forward against popular opinion and do what he felt was right.  I think we need more people like that.”

His boldness is probably best known to people in the area of cutting spending and reducing the size of government.  He spoke at length on the problem of overspending in Washington, repeatedly hitting on the theme that “We face a day of fiscal reckoning.”  In reference to the current debate regarding last year’s budget he scoffed at a possible compromise being in the ballpark of $33 billion.  “Were talking trillions in deficits, but were talking billions in cuts.”

Going into the event I was certainly in agreement with his general message and had read his book, but did not have a firm opinion of him one way or the other.  I left being very impressed, as did those sitting around me.  We apparently were not the only ones.  Reached for comment afterword State Senator Jack Whitver, one of the nights “Rising Stars,” responded “I was impressed with Senator Paul’s message.  I think his message resonates with Conservative voters.  He addressed the social issues and he was also very clear about the spending problems in Washington.”  He continued, “While he did not address whether he was going to run for President, I am confident that he will be part of the discussion in one way or another.”

In Paul’s recently published “The Tea Party Goes to Washington” he authors a simple sentence that is about as close as you can get to a mantra for how he plans to go about stamping Washington D.C. with his individual brand of Conservatism—“It’s hard to imagine changing the status-quo by only considering solutions acceptable to the status-quo.”  While pronouncements like this only recently have become red meat for Republicans, and in turn have become a plentiful fare, Senator Paul has working in his favor a unique and sub-conscious factor that leaves his bona fides and sincerity, in this regard anyways, hard to question.  Knowing whose house he grew up in one gets the feeling, if not the assurance, that his political mindset is one that he has had for quite some time.  A mindset that now happens to have an enthusiastic and receptive audience, and not the other way around.  Ironically, he may be in a position to turn the potential negative of his father’s political career into a positive that simultaneously affirms his genuineness while separating him from the growing number of newly converted “hardline” Conservatives.  This authenticity is something that will serve him well down the road if the Tea Party groundswell ends up having the legs to impact future ballot boxes in the same way it did in the 2010 mid-term elections.  In terms of speaking ability, substance, and grasp of the issues Senator Paul appears to be a future force on the national scene for the Republican Party.  If past is indeed prologue, four years from now Iowa GOP supporters may very well look back at this event as the first time they were tasked with mentally vetting Mr. Paul, and not the last.

As you know, both Governor Terry Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds were sworn in to their respective offices Friday.  The Inauguration ceremony, which is conducted as a joint session of the Iowa House and Iowa Senate, was held at Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines.  There was appropriate pomp and respect in the procession and swearing in of both Reynolds and Branstad, and about 2,000 people were present to witness the event.

The music at the event was awesome, and the selection of songs by the Heartland Youth Choir was wonderful.  I deeply appreciate the pride and respect given to our flags and the servicemen and women conducting during the presentation of the colors.

One can find some thoughtful and insightful thoughts from Shane Vanderhart (and later reflections as well), Kathy Obradovich, and Bleeding Heartland (yes, a liberal perspective shouldn’t hurt now and then).

Both gave speeches that provided an introduction into a kind of new beginning for state government in Iowa, and the foundation of their thoughts on how state government should serve Iowans.

Lieutenant Governor Reynolds offered some thoughts on the values being brought to Iowa government, and emphasized government’s need to listen to its people and focus on key areas like education while encouraging Iowans to proactively reach out to those around them in need.  She use the story of the Pender family in Windsor Heights to help emphasize this.

Governor Branstad more or less kept to his promise of a relatively short speech, but was long on promise.  The core message was that there would be a “new covenant” between government and Iowans.  His presentation focused on 5 main principles:

1. We have too much government and it must be reduced
2. Government must serve the people
3. It is time to restore integrity and transparency to our government decision-making processes
4. A renewed commitment to provide the best education in the world
5. We must celebrate success

The Governor’s speech was filled with a substantial amount of passion and emphasis on the areas that need work, and I was intrigued by the number of times the audience rose to their feet in response to his words.  The message itself, a message of the kind of government many have been calling for, a message of Iowans reaching out and helping other Iowans directly instead of waiting for government to act as a proxy, a message of renewing our commitment to education and commerce… this message is a good start for the new administration.

It’s interesting to note that in other countries, a change in leadership is ofter referred to as a “new government”.  We don’t tend to use that expression in the US so much, but it seems an appropriate expression at this time.

It’s worth a read.

That said, I was reminded in a conversation with my dad tonight about the cyclic nature of history and politics.  I’m personally encouraged by what the Governor shared on Friday, and between his administration, Iowa’s new Republican House and growing Republican presence in the Senate.  My hopes are high that we will be able to get our fiscal house in order and move to more careful spending.

However, we have been here before and our tendency has been to start off on the right foot (no pun intended) and end up spending ourselves into a stupor.  It will be difficult, but as citizens we need to be vigilant regarding the work of government and expect, nay, demand scrupulous management of our state’s resources from the beginning to the end of each term of office of our representatives and Governor.  It is a mistake to push the cart in the right direction and hope it reaches its destination unaltered.

The citizens needs to keep the cart straight.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A lot of people worked hard to prepare for this event and the ball later that day.  One person I want to mention whom I noticed in the procession was Mike Cook, who was a member of the Inaugural Committee.  There were clearly a number of great people on the committee, but Mike is someone I have worked with throughout my tenure with Polk County Republicans, and have admired him during that time.

Mike Cook has achieved greatness in my eyes because of his commitment to working as hard as he can to support the goals of our party despite physical challenges that would keep many away from any volunteer activities.  He is reliable, consistent, focused on the goal, and totally supportive of the party’s work.  Rarely do we have a need for volunteers where Mike does not show up. Whether it’s parades, phone calls, office work, manning a booth at an event, helping with setup, speaking before a group, Mike is always ready to step up and do what it takes to make a difference.

We have a lot of hard working volunteers, but Mike Cook shines brightly among them.

It seems unfair to continue to let Governor Culver get up in front of TV cameras and make a fool of himself.  Why put a sitting governor through the embarrassment of having to respond to questions about state government, policy, and the future of Iowa when the only answers he has are scary predictions of what he thinks Terry Branstad will do as governor?  Even when he has what many would say is a great story to tell about early childhood development programs, he flounders and spews out that Branstad will take preschool access away from children.

But overall, Chet does not have much of a story to tell, and he is desperate.  He will continue to criticize his opponent until election day.  It seems to be the only weapon his campaign team has in their arsenal to try to snatch victory from the jaws of utter failure.

I was surprised, however, by Culver’s announcement this week of a middle-class tax cut.  It’s amazing how such a blatantly political attempt to bribe the middle-class in Iowa to vote for Culver, after a contentious two years trying to resolve our budgetary crisis, is treated as a legitimate proposal.  Where will the money to pay for this tax cut come from?  Don’t get me wrong, I support cutting taxes when it makes sense, but we must cut spending first to support it.

I suspect that most Iowans who have been watching the debates are frustrated with the fact that the overall content of the debates has not changed much (and I don’t expect any improvement tomorrow), that the animus has gotten worse on both sides, and that the sitting governor is looking more and more like an angry leader fending off attacks with little more than a pea-shooter.  It’s like being at the gruesome scene of a fatal auto accident… you just want to look away from it all.

I expect tomorrow’s debate to have one area of meaningful (but not necessarily valuable) discussion, and that will be the new tax cut proposal.  Other than that, we will just have more snipes about DeCoster, about IJOBS, about Marriage, about the Budget, about Mismanagement, and all of it will be what we’ve already heard before.

At least it will be the last Gubernatorial Debate of this election.  I don’t know if I could stomach much more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regardless of how I feel about the debate, I will not only be watching it live (starting at NOON), but I will be live-blogging along with several other of the Guest Political Bloggers here at the Des Moines Register’s web site as we have for both of the previous debates.  I think it’s a great chance to hear some of our comments live and to respond yourself during the debate.  I hope you’ll join us!

The race for supervisor in Polk County’s third district is described as one of the most important races in Iowa. Former Gov. Terry Branstad (and current candidate) works to raise support for Republican supervisor candidate Dave Funk.

Funk, Branstad and event organizer Jeff Lamberti speak to constituents.

It should say a lot that as a Gubernatorial Candidate, Branstad took the time to attend the Lamberti event and speak on Funk’s behalf.  There’s no question that this campaign, to end over 60 years of Democrat control in Polk County, will have a significant impact on Iowa’s capitol city.  Since any candidate for governor does not have time to support every individual candidate in their party, clearly Funk’s campaign is seen as critical to making a difference in Iowa as a whole and that this district is important to the Governor’s race as well.

The theme of those speaking is what this crowd expects to hear: Reid and Pelosi are bringing the country down, killing jobs, killing the economy, stepping on the Constitution. What the country needs is smaller government, stronger jobs and economic growth, and greater fiscal responsibility, and Republicans can deliver.

Speakers included Republican Party of Iowa Co-chair Jim Kurtenbach, Representatives Steve King and Tom Latham, Senator Chuck Grassley, Former Governor and Candidate Terry Branstad, and Republican Party of Iowa Chair Matt Strawn.

Terry’s speech was the most heavily targeted at his opponent (Governor Chet Culver), hitting on all of the same issues we’ve heard on the campaign trail and in this week’s debate. Of the warm-up speeches his was probably the longest. Terry was very warmly received by this crowd, and he also took the time to mention all of the state constitutional office candidates.

A nice video tribute to the late President Ronald Reagan was part of the program, which included highlights from some of his best speeches over the years.

Matt Strawn gave a great talk on the importance of stepping up now and making sure we get as many principled conservative Republicans elected this fall as we can, as he introduced Sarah Palin.

So, what did Sarah have to say?

Sarah complimented Iowa, complimented Terry Branstad, then talked about staying focused on the 2010 election and not the 2012 election, meaning she wasn’t going to talk about whether she is running for President in 2012 or not.

She talked about the need to elect leaders who respect “We the People”, like Senator Grassley, Tom Latham, Steve King, and then mentioned her endorsement of Brenna Findley.

What does “We the People” mean, anyway? Sometimes this term is being used lately in a context that sounds like it is equivalent to “We the Conservatives”. Sorry for the tangent.

Sarah went on to talk about how competition (in primaries) is good, but that it is now time to unite. If we want to stop Obama, Pelosi and Reid, then now is the time to unite. She talked about the need to move on now after having lost primaries. And the Need to set aside internal power struggles for the sake of the party. The need is great going into the mid-term elections.

Sarah then went into an extended criticism of the Press and emphasis on the importance of holding the Press accountable when they are telling untruths. She even Called some of the media “cowards”. She made a number of suggestions about what she thought party leadership should be doing right now.

I think she’s running for RNC Chair.

sarah said that Voters and patriots will restore America. Our (Republican) candidates will bring back constitutional government. She agrees with Obama that there are better days ahead… starting on November 2.

Sarah went on to provide a list of the problems with the current administration and Congress. Culminating with the President’s “foolish” attempts to run a conciliatory foreign policy with our enemies, in stark contrast to Reagan’s strong support of allies and strong confrontational hold against our enemies.

She believes that Principles and People will help hold our nation together, and that it’s time for a national rediscovery and renewal.

Overall, her speech was very pro-business, pro-individual, pro-radical renewal, and very contrary to current federal policies.

And finally the biggest philosophical dichotomy we struggle with against Democrats today: we don’t need to fundamentally transform America, we need to restore America.  Great line, strongly received.

Although I agree with much of what Sarah had to say tonight, I will say I feel like I’ve been riding on a bullet train as she dropped a lot of already well-worn (literally word for word what I hear day after day from a variety of conservative sources) sound bytes as I passed by.  She basically covered much of what conservatives are frustrated with in our current government and many of the principles that conservatives are anxious to see drive what our government does (and does not do).

Nothing that she shared tonight compelled me to hold her up (despite my support of her two years ago) as a strong candidate for President. But I do think she can continue to be a strong voice for the movement, the party, and for people who feel they are not being heard.

And many of those people may think this gives her credibility as a Presidential candidate. That’s okay… but I don’t agree. At least not yet.  As I said before, she states a lot of what I agree with at a very high level, but I want to see some meat in the form of detailed policy statements.  My friend Shane Vander Hart tells me I need to read some of her recent writings, which I will do.

Anyhow, it was very encouraging to see so many Republicans gathered to celebrate our history of strong conservative values, and to get enthused for the campaign we are fighting this year. Hats off to the Republican Party of Iowa for an awesome job with this event! And thanks to Danielle Plogmann (RPI Communications Director) for doing a great job providing for the press and bloggers!

At the blogging table we had Craig Robinson (the Godfather), Shane Vander Hart (the Preacher, and Sarah’s number 1 fan in the Iowa Blogosphere), Albert Bregar (hizzoner), Grant Young (he never said “epic” tonight) and the folks from The Cool Conservative.