Reason #1 – A Sketchy, Schizophrenic History

While nearly all the data on editorial board endorsements show that they have a miniscule impact, if any at all, well over 70% of newspapers insist on letting readers in on their intense, well researched, and agenda free vetting. Though a nightmare for the hard journalism side of the paper, the hubris of editors and the short term buzz created by endorsements proves, cycle after cycle, too intoxicating to deny. Clearly I have no problem with public expressions of political opinion. If a newspaper wants to engage in it in spite of the fact it is counter-intuitive to their charter, then they have every right. However, one does have to wonder if it’s too much to expect for them to undertake the process with a minimal amount of intellectual honesty. Consider the following examples, all from the Des Moines Register’s editorial board since the year 2000.

• When contrasted against a Democrat, they have not deemed any Republican candidate fit for the White House in the last three cycles—opting for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008.

• Of the Republican primary field in 2000 they chose, believe it or not, George W. Bush. Beyond the massive irony, what’s interesting is that they chose Bush over fellow competitor John McCain, describing McCain as “having a tendency toward petulance when the cameras were off, and a lone-wolf style of action that has left him without the support of colleagues who should be his biggest admirers”. Never mind that eight years later he was chosen by the editorial board as the best choice amongst Republicans in 2008—though of course he ultimately fell short of recommending.

• In 2004 The Register had sized up John Edwards and concluded that he would make the finest president amongst the group, giving him the nod over all other Democrats running. Somehow over the next four years, he had regressed so far in his ability to lead the Country that when he came back in 2008 they couldn’t recommend him. Not only did they bump him from their top spot they slid him behind both Hillary Clinton and Obama, saying they “too seldom saw the ‘positive, optimistic’ campaign we found so appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.” Something tells me the editorial board doesn’t have quite the same problem with the “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric” being screamed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd today.

• Also in 2004, in what would prove to be perfect foreshadowing for their future love affair with Barack Obama, the paper, as mentioned above, endorsed John Edwards over the rest of the field. In doing so they wrote that after initially discounting Edwards because of his lack of experience, they changed their minds after hearing him eloquently speak about the needs of ordinary Americans—you can’t make this stuff up! Clearly their weakness/hunger for the fool proof combination of inspired speech giving and inexperience had not been quenched by the time 2008 rolled around. This leads us to the biggest piece of evidence that all the Register is accomplishing is insulting our intelligence…

Reason #2-  The 2008 Debacle

While the preceding examples were shady, The Register’s editorial board performance in 2008 showed beyond a reasonable doubt not only where their allegiance lay, but that the whole point of their endorsements are to further an agenda. They ended up of course endorsing Barack Obama in the general election, but it’s the way they got there that is so telling.

First, they chose Hillary over Obama on the Democrat side, while endorsing McCain over the rest of the field on the Republican side. I don’t doubt that the selection of McCain was largely due to him being the most moderate Republican in the field (though strangely he was a disturbing ‘petulant, lone-wolf actor’ eight years earlier), but he also would have been a “safe” choice at the time because he was polling in single digits and in 5th place. Picking a Republican that would not go on to win the nomination, like McCain appeared to be at the time, would have kept them out of the undesirable situation they eventually found themselves in—having to endorse their second Democratic pick over their first Republican choice (Obama over McCain).

Embarrassed and knowing they had to explain it away somehow, they managed to make themselves look even worse. They acknowledged the situation and explained their reasoning by claiming they had endorsed McCain because they felt he was a man of honor—but as the campaign wore on he became opportunistic and less dignified. What they cited as the biggest reason of why McCain was out for them was his selection of Sarah Palin. They did this, I kid you not, on the grounds of her inexperience! So to recap…The inexperience of a VP candidate turned them off enough that they instead chose to support, for the actual presidency, a man who had served less than four years in the Senate.

A great way to sum up the whole disingenuous circus is that while selecting McCain in the primary they said, “none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.” Contrast that with this insight as to why Hilary Clinton was a wiser choice than Obama, “When Obama speaks before a crowd he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.”…You have to give them credit there–that was some impressive foresight.

Conclusion

Former Des Moines Register opinion editor Richard Doak, who authored the 2004 Edwards endorsement, summed it up best in a later interview. Sharing his thoughts on the process he said, “The primary purpose of editorials are to stimulate discussion in the community… and it’s a vehicle through which the newspaper expresses its values.”

Trust me Richard, Iowa Republicans are plenty aware of the Des Moines Register’s “values”. Perhaps if they used any manner of consistency in the endorsement process, beyond of course the consistency of their Liberalism, maybe more Iowans would “value” the paper enough to start buying it again.

If you’ve followed The Conservative Reader earlier in 2009, you would note that we discussed a need to rethink the Conservative/Republican agenda. We have not yet dug into that process deeply, although many have been voicing their opinions about what needs doing.

There has been a substantive effort on the part of some Christian Conservative Republicans to promote an agenda that honors God with a level of apparent intolerance to those who do not agree with them. “No Compromise” is their war chant. While their positions certainly fall within the same realm as my own, their approach, ability to listen, and ability to acknowledge that they will not achieve the political utopia they seek (especially not on their own power), are all sadly lacking in the true message of the very God they are trying to serve. Interestingly, some of these folks have even stated some of the clear Christian principles that come in opposition to their behavior: Love, Mercy, and the need to change hearts through the power of God’s Grace and not through human Law. Instead, one hears little more than condemnation, personal attacks, and hatred. These folks could do themselves and the world a greater service by listening more and saying less. Regardless, I hope they continue to speak out about what is right (without the personal attacks), because that is a message that the World needs to hear. But Politics is never the final playing field of Truth.

Contrast that with the efforts of Doug Gross, who in the August 30 Des Moines Sunday Register delivered an Op-ed piece recommending complete abandonment of our efforts to drive back the social diseases that have infested society and have been embraced by the courts. Gross, who has been an unsuccessful candidate for Governor, believes that the key to the Republican Party’s success in 2010 will be a complete focus on fiscal issues and minimizing of efforts to try to address social issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage. His position seems to be as simple as this: the Republican Party will continue to falter while struggling with the “cultural and ideological wars”, so drop (or at least soften) the socials issues already so we can win. And he continues to argue with numbers of registered Republicans (which are a bit lower than Democrats and both largely lower than Independent… Iowa is mostly an Independent state) instead of looking at the very issues he decries and the overwhelming number of Iowans who continue to support Traditional Marriage and the lives of the unborn.

Doug also references research by the Iowa First Foundation. The focus of that research is party image. While I agree the image of the party is substantively tainted by public displays of in-fighting, a history of government largess, corruption and moral failure, it seems untenable to state that abrogating key party principles is really appropriate.

Keep in mind, the number one issue for Iowa Republicans is the Right To Life. The very first plank of the Iowa Republican Party Platform is:

1. A Right to Life

We believe life, from conception to natural death, is a sacred gift from the Creator and thus is an inalienable right as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore:

1.1. We affirm that every innocent person, including the unborn child, has the God-given and Constitutional right to life beginning at conception and ending at natural death

1.2. We reaffirm our support for an amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Iowa that protects innocent human life from conception to natural death.

1.3. We oppose using public revenues to fund abortions or organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, which advocate abortion.

1.4. We commend those who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers and offering adoption services. We furthermore support their right to perform the services in a manner that does not violate their values.

1.5. We support a ‘Woman’s Right to Know Law’ whereby performers of abortions must provide complete factual information to the pregnant woman about the complications of abortion, the biological development of the unborn, fetal pain, and the availability of alternatives to abortion.

1.6. We support legislation requiring that upon completion of informed consent as outlined in “Woman’s Right to Know Law” there shall be a three (3) day waiting period before any abortion services can be provided.

1.7. We support legislation requiring consent by a parent and/or legal guardian before a minor child receives an abortion or any other reproductive services and products. Such law should require proof of identity of the parent in order to protect children from continued abuse by sexual predators who pretend to be the parent taking their child for an abortion.

1.8. We support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

1.9. We support the use of non-embryonic stem cells to advance modern medical research. We oppose somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), embryonic stem cell research, human fetal-tissue research from induced abortions, and the commercial use or sale of fetal parts.

1.10. We strongly urge that the 2002 Human Cloning Ban, which was repealed in the 2007 Iowa Legislature, be reinstated.

1.11. We believe euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide are murder.

1.12. We support the ban of partial birth abortion.

1.13. We oppose the removal, by order of a court or state agency, of fluids or nourishment from those who are either acutely or terminally ill. We believe the decision should be left to the family or conservator.

1.14. Whereas DNA evidence is allowed in our Judicial system as proof of identity, we believe that DNA proves that a fetus upon conception, has DNA separate, from his parents, identifying him as a separate individual, with all the rights endowed him by the Constitution of the United States, that among these are the right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

1.15. We believe in “conscience clause” legislation so that no physician, pharmacist or other health care provider can be penalized for refusing to prescribe, dispense or participate in the procurement of abortion or anything contrary to the conscience of the health care provider.

1.16. We support the confidential statistical reporting of abortion procedures to the State Health Department by all doctors and facilities performing abortions in Iowa.

A lot of Iowa Republicans, I would suggest that most of those that voted at the 2008 State Republican Convention, support this plank. Furthermore, I think that a large number of Independents do as well.

We have a similar story on Family Values. Much of the plank on this topic is focused on Traditional Marriage and sexuality:

6. Family Values

In keeping with the reality that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that our nation’s foundation and subsequent blessings flow from adherence to and respect for the Judeo-Christian ethic, we affirm the following:

6.1. Traditional, marriage-based (one male and one female) families are intrinsically procreative and thereby essential to a stable, thriving, and lasting civilization. Therefore, public policy must always be pro-family, encouraging marital and family commitment, while also supporting parental rights and responsibilities.

6.2. We support an amendment to the Iowa Constitution stating that “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

6.3. We support an amendment to the United States Constitution stating that “Only marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized in the United States, and that neither the Federal government, any state government, or the political subdivisions thereof may create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”

6.4. We encourage adoption of children by heterosexual married couples consisting of one man and one woman.

6.5. We oppose adoption by same-sex couples.

6.6. We believe access to sexually explicit material, especially on the Internet, poses a serious threat to our families and children. Therefore we must strengthen and enforce our laws to protect our families and children.

6.7. We believe in the sanctity of marriage and call upon the Iowa Legislature to rescind “no-fault divorce” laws.

6.8. We believe that parents are responsible for their children and we support the rights of parents to discipline and protect their children.

6.9. We uphold the Declaration of Independence and the Pledge of Allegiance, with references to the Creator as presently written, and believe that it is constitutional and does not violate separation of Church and State, but ensures freedom of religion and not from religion.

6.10. We oppose any law, ordinance or policy that would approve the practice of homosexuality.

6.11. We strongly oppose the UN “Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

6.12. We call for the repeal of sexual orientation in the Iowa Civil Rights Code and we oppose any other legislation or executive order granting rights, privileges, or status for persons based on sexual orientation.

6.13. We believe the father of a child, born or unborn, has the same rights and responsibilities as the mother in all matters regarding the child.

Again, this is what Republicans in Iowa believe in. There are other areas of social concern (Health and Human Service, Immigration) as well.

Do I think the platform is perfect? No, but then again I do think it is well done, and fairly well addresses the concerns of Iowa Republicans. Should we ignore or discard these sections of the Platform? That would be wrong. You may hear me suggest that in working with the opposition party, one must be prepared to listen and perhaps work out a compromise in order to achieve a path toward long-term success. However, the Party Platform provides the most substantive statement of what we think is “right” as Republicans and we must maintain steadfastly our core message.

Doug thinks that promoting our Conservative Social Agenda (read “religious”) will just continue to make Republicans irrelevant. Doug thinks that “Iowans get nervous when their politicians wear their religion on their sleeves.”  The image of wearing religion on one’s sleeve is dramatically at odds with the simple fact that for many Republican politicians, Faith is one of the key drivers behind their policy positions (as it is for many Iowans), and it is a sign of integrity that they make that fact clear to voters.  Although there are some who are turned off by that, I find that most folks I encounter find this honesty refreshing as long as aligning with that faith is not presented as a cultural or organizational mandate.

There is no doubt that we have a large amount of diversity within the Republican Party and that we need to be inviting even to those who don’t necessarily align perfectly with our entire platform (and I am speaking more toward party members than I am toward potential candidates).  But frankly, the challenge goes both ways: those who come in should learn to understand and accept the fact that the majority has established the principles and policy positions, and the majority should be willing to take the time to not only explain but to also listen to those that hold a differing viewpoint.  Regardless of the majority decisions on anything, each individual in the party has value and should be treated that way.

Doug provides some compelling and valuable ideas regarding areas where the Republican Party can make some improvements, and indeed the Party has already done so at the state level and within many county organizations. This includes working to engage our youth, leveraging newer communications technologies and strategies, and a stronger emphasis on recruitment. And, as Ted Sporer said in response yesterday,

Given the economic collapse our nation faces, and Iowa’s role as arguably the worst business climate in the nation, there really cannot be any argument that the economy is our best punch.

Agreed, the economy and the impact even the fear that Socialized Medicine brings to Iowans are areas of essential work.

But to deprive the public of both the information and opportunity to debate the critical social issues that assail us today is not only ingenuous, but weak. Despite the fact that Democrats hold sway in the Iowa General Assembly and that the Iowa Supreme Court is made of up folks that sincerely believe it is their responsibility to mold society to their value system, Iowans have and want the right to speak clearly on these issues.  Our party is their only real hope of having a voice.

There were some folks in our country’s history who did some awesome things… we call them the Founding Fathers.  When the Declaration of Independence was written, they debated references to slavery, and ended up dropping the language, an unfortunate decision.  Further work was attempted throughout the building of our nation, but it took over 80 years for us to address this disease on our society officially, and we still suffer some of the ill effects of this decision today.  But it took the forming of the Republican Party, and an unswerving commitment by the Party and its leaders, to bring slavery to an end.  It wasn’t politically prudent.  Lincoln almost lost his reelection  bid over the war that ensued.  But it was the right thing to do, and we are the better for doing what we know is right.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There is one other aspect that needs consideration, especially if you are concerned (as Doug is) about the core value of “winning”.

I spoke with my dear wife about Doug’s position on this last night. Keep in mind that my wife is not as driven to engage in the political quagmire as I am, and typically does not express strong opinions on topics such as “What should the Republican Party do about the internal debate regarding social issues?”.

Her response to Doug’s position was simple. “That’s stupid”. And here’s her reasoning. If as a party we step away from our values, especially regarding Life and Traditional Marriage, we will instantly lose the support of those that provide the fuel for our party. These are smart folks… they read the Des Moines Register and blogs like this, they listen to talk radio, they work on their own key agendas, and they are fired up about how Republican Principles speak to their values, and I guarantee they read Doug’s piece on Sunday with angst.

Those folks might still vote Republican in an election, but their volunteer, financial and vocal support for the party will evaporate. Without this hard work and critical support, the Republican Party will no longer attract voters.

And, according to Doug, our “business is attracting voters”.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I made a passing reference to a piece that Ted Sporer published yesterday at his blog. Ted was spot on, and as usual was able to express his position much more eloquently than I. Some of my thoughts and comments were helped by having read Ted’s piece, so I want to especially acknowledge that.

I also appreciate the opportunity to talk through these thoughts on The Beanwalker Live! program this afternoon (about 25 minutes or so into the program) with Tim Albrecht.  Tim is very sharp and a great sounding board for topics like this.  Catch his great site The Beanwalker.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Reading Assignment:

• Yes, GOP, you can make a comeback
• The Gross Poll: Insight into the decade of defeat.
• 2008 Iowa Republican Party Platform

There are some great Des Moines Register reader comments at the story site above.  Many questions, most pointed being “What is being done to ensure the next flood doesn’t cause this kind of damage?”, are being asked.  And while I can certainly agree that when rebuilding from the ground up one would want to start afresh instead of just rebuilding the same structure in the same location, one can also rebuild in phases, designing facilitities to ensure that basic services and features are available while leaving additional work for later years or donations to provide additional space.

And that is all well and good for things like the Library.  Museums can wait a bit.  I would go so far as to say that Iowans as a whole, as generous as they are, would rather see any money going to building homes, levies, drainage systems, etc. instead of non-essentials (though desirable) such as a museum. 

Also, in rethinking the Libraries that need to be rebuilt, I can undestand needing to provide additional space for internet workstations.  But with all of the content that available digitally, how much paper-based primary sources for research are really needed?  I can see liesure reading material as important, but there should be a lot of content that can be left for internet access these days, it seems. 

All that said, this topic should be about priorities and limits.  Identify the things that truly need to be fixed or replaced (like peoples homes, especially if they are living in FEMA housing), but I don’t agree with spending state money, during such hard times economically, on non-essentials.  Let the private donors solve that for now, and wait for better times to fund more cultural projects.

But government won’t change their direction just because I say they should.  Or even if the majority of Iowans say they should.  That is, until those Iowans show up at the voting booth and find better leaders.

In an exclusive Bean Walker interview, Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley says he will file the necessary paperwork to form a gubernatorial exploratory committee.

He says he will remain focused on his job as the Senate GOP leader, and expects to come to a decision “by early fall.”

McKinley will join Bob Vander Plaats, Rep. Chris Rants and Christian Fong, who have all filed the necessary paperwork in their potential runs for governor.

Full story by clicking here: http://www.thebeanwalker.com.

This is turning into a fairly respectable field, and not too awry from what I would have expected, although Christian Fong had only come to my attention a couple of weeks ago.

The candidates are still working through the initial “Who Am I, Really?” phase of their campaigns, from what I think I know about these candidates we can probably expect Vander Plaats to be more heavily focused on social issues than the rest of the field, while McKinley will be very focused on fiscal issues.  I’ve met all of these gentlemen at least once with the exception of Fong (who my friend David Chung tried to introduce to me at the Night of The Rising Stars Iowa GOP event in June, but didn’t work out), and those that I’ve met seem to have a good personality for the job.  Fact is, I still don’t know much about any of them.

Unfortunately, it’s going to be difficult to get a good read on where the candidates stand on the issues that Iowans will care about in 2010 just yet.  Partly because we don’t know what those issues will be (although I strongly suspect it will be all about the state budget, spending and taxation).  So, like most long campaigns (11 months to the June 8, 2010 primary), our perception of how well each of these men would serve will be formed and reformed until we get into the Spring of 2010.

A couple of comments:

1. I am please to see an ethnically diverse candidate (Fong) in the mix.  It is refreshing to see more and more people from diverse cultures step up and offer their skills as leaders in our communities, and we should do all we can to encourage folks like Christian to step out and lead.
2. I think it is time to see some women consider running for Governor.  For the past several years, I was represented in both the Iowa House and Senate by women (Libby Jacobs, who stepped down last year, and Pat Ward).  I have know a number of other women legislators from around the state and they all provide strong leadership.  While I am not advocating any specific person, it would be great to start seeing some of these women considering a run for Governor, and not to run because they are women, but because they have been gifted with the skills and vision to lead our state.  I believe some of them have, and that should be reason enough.

Linda Lantor Fandel expressed similar thoughts about the presence of women on the Supreme Court yesterday in the Des Moines Register.  I think, if I grasped her point correctly, that she and I both agree that the key issue in political diversity is not voting for someone or appointing someone because of their gender or ethnicity, but rather the grasping of opportunities by women and ethnically diverse individuals.  No one should feel constrained or limited because they are not male or white.

And just think, before this is all over, we will be starting to look at candidates for President for 2012.  We never get a break, do we?

We urge you, as the session progresses, to take the time to communicate with your elected representatives.  Go to this link, and find your representative’s name, click on it, and you’ll get phone numbers, email addresses, information about committee assignments and links to bill sponsorships.  I will be in contact with Peter Cownie and Pat Ward, the House and Senate members who represent me here in West Des Moines.

I exchanged emails with Peter last week.  This is his freshman years in the Statehouse, and he managed to get assigned to Appropriations, Economic Growth, Educatio nand Labor committees, and on Appropriations, he is the ranking member of the Economic Development subcommittee.  He told me that this year is pretty much all about the Budget.

Which leads me to Friday Night’s Iowa Press on IPTV.  Senator Mike Gronstal (D-Senate Majority Leader from Council Bluffs) and Representative Pat Murphy (D-Speaker of the House from Dubuque) were grilled by Dean Borg (the host), David Yepsen from the Des Moines Register, and Mike Glover from the Associated Press.

The message from Gronstal and Murphy was the same one that Peter heard… it’s about the budget.  We’ve already seen Governor Culver make two swipes at state spending to try and get the budget aligned with expected revenues.  Gronstal started responding to the budget question from Glover by saying that committees will be working hard on cutting expenses, and then proceeded to hit the first shortsighted decision which is the canceling of plans for a new state office building.  Gronstal said: “we need a new state office building, Wallace needs to be replaced but not today.”  On the one hand, if we don’t have the money, we don’t have the money… but on the other hand the cost of the new building, which “we need” will jump up every year we wait.  On the third hand, we could reduce the size of government and eliminate the need for the Wallace Building altogether, but that’s not likely to happen.  This is one project that needs more careful review in my opinion.

As they discussed ideas such as leasing the Lottery (an idea that’s been floated around lately) and allowing open positions in government to stay vacant, it became clear that Gronstal wasn’t quite prepared to express a confident opinion about anything yet… he said he wasn’t going to reject any idea until looking at the details.  Glover asked about what has been at the heart of the Lottery question for decades, which is the possibility that leasing it to private interests could quickly lead to expanded gambling in Iowa (as if any more expansion is going to really matter any longer), which Gronstal rejected out of hand.  Yepsen went on the offensive, asking about campaign contributions from gambling interests, and Gronstal didn’t like it:

Yepsen: The gambling industry makes campaign contributions to state legislators. How much does that have to do with this decision? If the gambling industry wants to buy the lottery from you and you’re getting thousands of dollars in campaign donations doesn’t it get sold?

Gronstal: No, David, I don’t think that’s true at all. Look, I think it’s an interesting idea, it’s one worth considering. If we go through that process we very well may decide, no, it doesn’t make sense. But why reject the idea of considering it? I think that’s fairly silly to reject even considering an idea. I’m actually really surprised at your critical questions. The legislature has often advocated considering privatization.

Yepsen: We always ask critical questions, Senator.

Gronstal: But the idea of privatization shouldn’t be rejected out of hand.

Yepson then took the opportunity to jump to a question that should be bugging all of us: AFSCME, the state workers union, is asking for a 5% pay raise for workers next year, and another 5% the year after that.  While people in the private sector are losing their jobs, not getting raises even close to 5%, and the key question of how every state worker makes 30% more than the average citizen.  Gronstal made one smart-mouthed response about CEOs (that was just inappropriate), and then said he wouldn’t comment on it because of the fact that the state is actively engaged in negotiations, and it’s the Governor’s job, not the General Assembly.  Yepsen kept the heat up, Murphy tried defending the salaries by talking about what some of the state workers do (covering maybe 5% of those workers… don’t get me wrong, I want police and fire protection paid well, but we’re talking about a lot of overpaid workers).

Bottom line on the union is that we won’t get any serious discussion about this from Democratic leaders because they’ll lick the union bosses’ shoes just to ensure they continue to have votes in 2010.  And we’ll be left holding the check.

There was a good conversation about the use of the state’s Rainy Day Fund and the general Cash Reserve.  It was good to hear that the leaders would consider usnig the RDF if necessary to ensure Iowans that are struggling from the weather and economic disasters of 2008 are helped appropriately… I agree that the Cash Reserve should be left alone as that is needed to ensure that we don’t need to borrow money if revenue shortfalls start to impact cash flows.

Also good conversation around the numerous proposals for local option sales taxes and the possibility of introducing flexibility for local governments to collect fees to offset property taxes.  Gronstal actually said something I can strongly agree with: property taxes are too high.  The trouble is, some fees are just another property tax, so I’m not exactly keen on that.  Local option sales taxes are fine, and all the state is doing is allowing the local governments to decide to impose them… the state doesn’t pay or benefit from that EXCEPT that the pressure on the state to help out is reduced.

They also discussed the proposal to raise the gas tax by a nickel to help create jobs and improve the existing transportation infrastructure.  I’m a bit torn… I like the fact that it helps keep people employed, but I hope we don’t end up wasting money on unnecessary projects.

They also hit on teacher pay, and corrections facility needs.  The most revealing statement of the evening came next, however.  Yepsen asked if Gay Marriage would be debated this year.  Both politicians flatly said “No.”, with Murphy adding that they were going to “let the courts make that decision”.  It shouldn’t amaze me that these guys are clearly incapable of true leadership, but I suppose when you know you lack both a credible position and will lose power if you do the right thing, having the Iowa Supreme Court there to bail you out is certainly a reasonable option.

Gronstal ended by saying this year is about the Budget and Disaster Recovery.  I wonder whether we’ll ever recover from the 2009 session?