Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

A Tradition Is Born: Senator Jack Whitver To Host Branstad and Latham At Ankeny BBQ

A Tradition Is Born: Senator Jack Whitver To Host Branstad and Latham At Ankeny BBQ

With the primary and caucus season officially over, the time for Iowa Republicans to come together has now arrived.  For Republicans in Ankeny and the surrounding areas, literally getting together will be on the menu Saturday May 26th at the Ankeny Band Shell in Wagner Park—along with some world-class barbeque.

The event is the first annual “Senator Whitver Memorial Day Weekend Picnic,” and it will feature some great guests.  Among those speaking will be Governor Terry Branstad, Congressman Tom Latham, and Secretary of State Matt Schultz.

For Senator Whitver the idea of having a picnic was the perfect way to bridge two good causes, “There is such a feeling of community in Ankeny and I wanted to start an event that can be an annual tradition.  Being a young father myself, it is important to me that this is a family friendly event.  This will be a great chance for kids to meet and speak with their elected officials, including the Governor, and a great opportunity to teach them the importance of being involved.”  The other good cause is that all funds raised will go to support Senate Republicans this November.  To this point Senator Whitver added, “This is also an event that will help Republican candidates all over the state and help us take the majority in the Iowa Senate next fall.”

Besides hearing from the featured guests, Ankeny residents will have the chance to meet the candidates running to represent them in the Iowa House, as well as Polk County Sheriff candidate Dan Charleston.   There will be plenty of food and entertainment throughout, as all attendees will be treated to live music and the cooking of renowned Iowa barbeque chef Lee Booton.

Against the family picnic backdrop, political enthusiasts will have plenty to keep an eye on as well.  This will be one of Governor Branstad’s first public appearances following the adjourning of the Iowa Legislature, and many will likely be hearing from Congressman Latham for the first time since launching his campaign in a very high profile showdown with Representative Leonard Boswell.  Returning to Ankeny after speaking at the Polk County Convention in March, Mr. Latham sounds ready to meet and speak with voters in a far more casual setting.  When asked for his thoughts on this upcoming Republican get together he responded, “I am looking forward to this great event and an afternoon of seeing old friends and making new ones.”

In the big picture, the influence that Iowa has in the primary process will be fully re-lived this November.  As an unquestioned swing state in the presidential election and home to two of the most important Congressional races in the Country, what happens here will undoubtedly re-shape American politics for the next several years.

All those interested in shaping what will become an Ankeny tradition for several years to come should take a look at the flyer below and make plans to attend on Saturday, May 26th.  If you are sure to attend, please RSVP to [email protected].  Tickets will also be available for purchase the day of the event.

 

 

2012 Legislative Session Ends Minus Tax Deal: Analysis and Governor’s Statement

2012 Legislative Session Ends Minus Tax Deal: Analysis and Governor’s Statement

After failing to reach a compromise on tax reform for the second consecutive session, today the Iowa Legislature adjourned until next year.  In the end the Governor-backed House proposal on property tax reform failed to even see a vote in the Senate, as Senator Gronstal refused to bring it to the floor.

We will have analysis on this in the coming days, but my gut tells me that privately many Republicans, especially those in the 2010 crew, are more than willing to gamble on a majority in the Iowa Senate after November.  This is not to say that they did not want to put something on the books this session, but there are multiple reasons why this conclusion was advantageous.

First, considering the alternative, the optics couldn’t of turned out much better.  Some in the Republican caucus had even publicly hinted that not getting a deal may be the best deal, and if they had pushed walking away from the session a week ago it could have easily been pinned on them.  Instead the way it ended, with the Senate majority leader failing to bring up the already passed House bill, Democrats were left holding the bag–and the blame.  Making matters worse for Gronstal and company is the fact that they lost two Democrats in the final vote on the Senate version, which means their own plan did not even pass the Democrat controlled Senate.  With the House passing a tax reform plan that the Senate chose not only to ignore, but to ignore in favor of holding a losing vote on their own plan, there is almost no way for this to be spun as a Republican inspired log-jam.

Second, from a strictly long-term strategic viewpoint, Republicans waiting till after November is also a win-win.  The reason for this is simple.  There is no policy downside in waiting till next session because, even if Republicans fail to take the majority in the Senate, there is absolutely no way the Democrats will put a smaller tax reduction plan on the table next session.  They have already staked out their ground politically on this issue and they can only agree to either the same level of cuts or more cuts than they proposed this session.  Can you imagine what would happen if they came back next session and put an offer on the table of less tax relief?…point made.  The upside for Republicans however is potentially huge–a majority, in which case they would get what they had on the table this session, and probably then some.

There is certainly more to come on the session wrap in the near future, including Republican reaction, but for the time being below is the full text of Governor Branstad’s official statement on the end of the 2012 session.

************************************************************************************************************

In January, the lieutenant governor and I brought forward a bold agenda focused on the dual goals of job creation and transformational education reform.  I want to thank the General Assembly for considering our priorities and for adopting a significant number of them to help move our state forward. [See list below.]

Legislation passed by this General Assembly will provide our Iowa Economic Development Authority with additional tools to help meet our administration’s ambitious goal to create 200,000 new jobs.  We have made significant progress on that goal during this first year and a half and the High Quality Jobs Incentive Fund and Employee Stock Option Plan legislation will help accelerate those efforts.

I am also pleased that this General Assembly took a first important step toward our goal of transformational education reform.  While these initial steps may be considered by some as small, our new early childhood literacy initiative, in particular, will have lasting effects on the lives of thousands of Iowa children and significantly improve their chances of future academic and career success.  We also enhance teacher accountability by requiring annual reviews.

However, the 2012 session may be remembered as much for what failed to be accomplished as for what actually was accomplished.  Despite the best efforts of my office and a bipartisan majority in the Iowa House, the inability of Senate Democrats to adopt serious property tax reform has put Iowa taxpayers in jeopardy of seeing significant property tax increases in the coming year.

The Senate failed to support legislation based on the framework I believe was agreed to as a roadmap to finding a compromise between my office, the House, and the Senate.  They failed to pass a meaningful step forward in our goal to make Iowa’s tax system more competitive or assist with our critically needed job creation goals.

As a result, Iowa taxpayers face yet another year with property taxes that are scheduled to grow nearly $2 billion over the next eight years.  This is absolutely unacceptable and Iowa voters will have an opportunity to resolve this impasse in November.

Lt. Governor Reynolds and I are proud to work with all members of the Iowa General Assembly and proud to serve our citizens each and every day.   We will continue over the next seven and a half months of 2012 to travel the state, promote our ambitious agenda, and work aggressively toward the achievement of our four goals:

1.      200,000 new jobs for Iowans;

2.      25% increase in personal incomes;

3.      Reduce the cost of government by 15%; and

4.      Provide our children with the nation’s finest education.

Senator Joe Bolkcom’s Political Theater Reveals Utter Disregard For Iowa Taxpayers

Senator Joe Bolkcom’s Political Theater Reveals Utter Disregard For Iowa Taxpayers

Perhaps no issue better illustrates the philosophical divide between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans than the Earned Income Tax Credit.  Here in Iowa a theatrical stunt a few weeks back by ultra-Liberal Iowa City Democrat Senator Joe Bolkcom put the issue front and center.  In the hopes of pressuring Governor Branstad to support a huge increase in the Iowa Earned Income Tax Credit, Pleasantville resident Julie Heck was brought in to symbolize the need for this action by taking part in a press conference before then testifying in front of the Ways and Means Committee.  Ms. Heck is a single mother of three who is currently receiving the Iowa Earned Income Tax credit, and on this day set about making the case that while she is glad to have it—it sure would be nice to get more of our money.

While Democrats were no doubt tickled by both the media exposure and the perceived effectiveness of this spectacle, the realities surrounding her specific situation, including her own stunning words, expose the utter disregard that liberal Democrats have for all Iowa taxpayers.

The Press Conference

In the press conference Ms. Heck says that she is a single mother of three who works full time and attends college full time at Simpson.  She made $33,000 in income last year.  Beyond not paying a penny in Federal income tax, she instead received a $5,279 check from the Federal government which combined $2,279 from the Federal E.I.T.C and another $3,000 from the Federal Child Tax Credit.  Receiving the Federal E.I.T.C  in turn qualified her to receive an additional $160 from the Iowa E.I.T.C.  Without getting into all the numbers, after using a portion of her Federal refund to pay the $410 she owed to the state of Iowa, she ended up not only with a zero dollar income tax burden, but instead was actually paid $4,869 by the government.

[wp-youtube-hd-large]7jsMZEhuwbc[/wp-youtube-hd-large]

While so much is wrong with this picture, two things are particularly disturbing.  Firstly, instead of being grateful to live in a system that allows her to receive a net profit of $4,869 from the income tax code, she actually had the audacity to sit in front of a microphone and decry the fact that she had to pay any Iowa income taxes at all.  And, remarkably unsatisfied with what she has already received, she wants even more money—it is just unbelievable.

Perhaps the biggest slap in the face here is what she admits to spending some of this refund money on.  At the 3 minute mark of the video posted above, she plainly states that she is using her Federal “refund” money to help pay for her college tuition, and then proceeds to say that some of this money also goes to match the funds her children manage to save throughout the year.

As a taxpayer who over the last two years alone has sent tens of thousands of dollars to the Federal government and several thousand more to the state of Iowa, I find these details outrageous.  Let me be clear, I have no problem paying taxes to help those who are destitute, starving, or un-sheltered.  However, paying for a mother of three who decides that she now wants to attend college full time is a far different matter.

Once any American citizen makes the decision to bring three human lives into the world it is solely their own responsibility to provide for those children by any means necessary.   In this case it clearly means working a second job to provide for her family instead of spending our tax dollars to attend college.  I ask you this, how many hundreds of thousands of Iowans, especially small business owners, send their money into the government each year and afterwards do not have enough left over to afford schooling, or to match their children’s savings?

The Politics and Implications

Finally we have Sen. Bolkcom, the Iowa personification of this entitlement mentality, and the political and financial implications of this situation.  After Ms. Heck’s statement  Sen. Bolkcom threatens (at the 7:20 mark) that until the “earned” income tax credit is brought up from its current 7% to either 13% or 20%, that in his mind all tax relief for Iowans is off the table.  Realize here what this man is actually saying.  That before he entertains any legislation to cut the taxes of Iowans who have been throttled by actually paying high taxes for years—Ms. Heck must first receive an even larger refund.

This attitude and approach are stunning.  Putting on display a woman who makes $33,000 a year, who attends college fulltime, and already receives nearly $5,000 in government money through the tax code to justify almost tripling the Iowa E.I.T.C is beyond insulting.  This clearly shows all taxpayers in Iowa what little respect some have for the contributions we are making to government coffers every year.

Republicans agreed multiple times last year to increase the percentage of the Iowa E.I.T.C, largely as part of a legislative give and take they hoped would result in other tax proposals gaining passage, but the governor twice vetoed the section raising the credit.  In explanation he cited his desire to instead include it in a much larger tax reform bill, though the Senate again last month passed it as a stand alone measure (SF 2161).  The price tag of raising the credit to 20% would cost Iowa taxpayers $49.9 million every year after it fully phased-in in 2016.  This is no doubt a number that seems tiny to Democrats, but is a big deal when you consider that Chief Justice Cady is likely to again be denied an additional $10 million in funding for our judicial system, which has been underfunded for decades.

Once again I stress that the root of my problem here is not so much the issue itself or the price tag of passing the increase.  Above all else, this specific example exposes how we are losing the spirit of defiant self-sufficiency that we once had—and how quickly it is getting replaced with an attitude that instead asks ‘what more can you do for me?’  What is so galling about this is not that the government would offer assistance to people in serious need (they certainly should), but rather how that need is now defined.

While this entire production was likely staged with the sole purpose of raising the guilt level and putting public pressure on Governor Branstad to accept the increase, in reality what it raises is a much larger question:

Has the mentality throughout our state become so collectivist in nature that hard working Iowans are going to be viewed as “heartless” for not wanting to pay adults to go to college and be able to match their children’s piggy bank contributions?

If the answer is yes than Conservatives and Libertarians have a lot more work to do…and Iowans will have a lot more taxes to pay in the future.

Has The Tea Party Wave In Iowa Crested?

Has The Tea Party Wave In Iowa Crested?

The year was 2010.  In Iowa, like in the rest of the Country, a reaction to the obscene growth in size and spending at all levels of government boiled into a loud and visible public movement.  The internet was a buzz, local Tea Party chapters were springing up, and the Iowa Capitol was the site of several well attended rallies expressing the sentiment of less government and lower taxes.  Two years later, it is time to ask the question—what results have come of this?

The short answer at the state level here in Iowa is—not too much so far.

Most will argue that more patience is required—and they are right.  Many will cite a variety of reasons that explain the lack of great action—some valid points to be sure.  Meanwhile, the more optimistic in the movement will point to some victories—and I grant that they have a case.

All this considered, it is hard not to be disappointed with the lack of impact Tea Party ideals have had on Iowa’s legislative process.  Let’s take a brief look at the landscape.

Victories So Far 

Probably the biggest achievement Republicans at the State House can point to is drastically slowing the pace of growth in the annual budget.  It would likely shock most Iowans to know that the total appropriations made by our legislature in the year 2002 was $4.375 billion dollars, less than a decade later (FY 2011) the amount spent had jumped to $5.8 billion, an indefensible increase of 33% in less than a decade.  Though slightly more money has been spent in each of the last few years, getting a handle on this expansion was not necessarily a given, and for this kudos are well deserved.

The problem here of course is baseline budgeting.  The ridiculous increases seen from 2002-2011 have now been built into future budgets—with next year’s expenditure and all projected future years being amounts in excess of $6 billion per year.  The reality is that Iowans, of either political party, who are holding their breath for a significant decrease in their taxes can expect two things—a blue-ish hue followed by a funeral.  The simple fact is that while future tax hikes can be avoided, as long as the legislature is spending over $6 billion a year—your taxes are not significantly going down.

Other victories that can be pointed to will be met by fiscal purists with justifiable skepticism, the formation of the Property Tax Relief Fund and 0% allowable growth for education in 2012.  Time will tell, but the Property Tax Relief Fund may end up being yet another technocratic “victory” in the legislative shell game.  I may be wrong, but I can tell you from experience that digging down into the details of many proposed reforms and tax cuts often end up being more of an exercise in moving money around than anything else.  In terms of the achievement of 0% allowable growth, this was gained in exchange for 2% growth in 2013 and could be completely erased if an already proposed 4% growth rate in 2014 is green lighted.  For the record, approving a 4% increase in education spending would directly cost taxpayers another $196.2 million.

The Reasons

There are many factors that account for this lack of action, and they make it blatantly unfair to directly blame our fiscally Conservative legislators for not achieving sweeping change.

Chief among these is the narrow, but iron fisted, control spend-happy Democrats have in the Iowa Senate.  Pragmatically speaking, one could argue it doesn’t make much sense to propose large initiatives that are effectively dead on arrival in the Senate.  In addition to this it is hard to get movement in these areas when one of the major players, the governor, is not fully on board.  Let’s face it, while he is undoubtedly a strong Republican—he isn’t exactly going to be caffeinating any bodies of water under the cover of darkness any time soon.

Realistically the most valid reason is the predetermined circumstances surrounding this session.  All the oxygen is being consumed by the massively involved efforts left over from last session, which include preventing built-in tax increases, re-structuring mental health services, and a flailing attempt at education reform.  A final thing that deserves mention is that they have been put on defense by having to block a continuing parade of costly bills introduced by the Democrats most Liberal wing.  Stay tuned as The Conservative Reader: Iowa will be posting an analysis of these proposals in the near future.

Some Boldness Would Suffice

I think that most Tea Party supporters in Iowa have, so far, looked at the variety of factors in play and given a pass to the fiscal-hawk wing of our legislature.  Most of us are reasonable in our expectations and we realize that big political results are hard to come by.  That being said, the time to at least start articulating a vision and making the case that real tax cuts will only follow real spending cuts is at hand.  At this point we are not even demanding deliverables—even some boldness would suffice.

An example of this boldness has been displayed recently by Sen. Brad Zaun, and everyone in the movement should take the time to drop him a note of moral support.  Knowing that it would not even survive funnel week, Sen. Zaun proposed a bold bill that contains a future vision of education in Iowa that is worth fighting for.  Directly following this session other Tea Party leaning members would be wise to start following suit.  It is their job to start constructing an agenda and a platform that can eventually cut taxes by cutting spending.

So, has the Tea Party Movement in Iowa crested?

While it is fair to reserve final judgment on this, the lack of real legislative results proves at the minimum it has receded.  As of right now the Tea Party trajectory in Iowa closely resembles the illegal immigration outrage that came to a National boil in early 2008—a huge movement that has delivered small victories along the way before largely fading.

After providing the weight for the water displacement which created the wave in 2010, many fiscally concerned Iowans are standing on the shore in 2012 with only soggy ankles.  I suspect that the political energy needed to make the case statewide for smaller government is still readily available.  What is needed at this point is a tightly formed caucus with a vision supported by pieces of actual legislation.

Without brave and principled leadership this movement cannot be sustained…we will be watching.

The Tea Party Comes To Ankeny: An Interview With Stacey Rogers(Part 2 of 2)

The Tea Party Comes To Ankeny: An Interview With Stacey Rogers(Part 2 of 2)

This is second installment of a 2-part interview.  To read part one click here.

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

    Log in