by | Mar 27, 2012
What had promised to be an explosive evening at the Polk County central committee meeting Tuesday night never really materialized.
Throughout the past two days buzz had been growing that an organized effort to unseat McLaughlin as Chairman would take place, and rumors were flying that the person spearheading this undertaking was Rep. Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill). What is clear following the meeting is that she was never involved at any level, and that the leader of the group aiming to replace the Chairman was in fact precinct 85 resident Craig Bergman.
The only fireworks transpired at the beginning of the meeting when a motion was made to suspend the rules and normal proceedings of the meeting and instead have a vote on removing the Chairman.  What played out was that, by a near three to one margin (91-39), the central committee voted to proceed with the meeting’s business as usual and have the showdown afterward. Presumably based on the large majority who stood in support of putting off the vote, the contingent on hand to oppose the Chairman realized that they did not have the numbers and chose to stand down on this night.
Perhaps the most memorable and foretelling moment of the night came when Chairman McLaughlin, on mic and standing at the podium, was explaining to a confused group of members that he was not avoiding a vote on his fate. He summed it up by saying, “if anyone wants to try to ‘send me to the showers’ they are welcome to do that”, which he followed a few seconds later with, “That said, I don’t intend to go to the showers I intend to finish my job.”
Clearly Kevin McLaughlin is not backing away anytime soon, and neither is the sizable sect passionate that his performance as Chairman has not been up to par. Based on the numbers it is hard to see how this group, in its current size and form, will be able to successfully remove the leadership in the middle of their term. It is fair to note, however, that while this effort was denied tonight, there has been widespread discontent and rumblings regarding what has been perceived as several organizational shortcomings.
My sense moving forward is that McLaughlin and his team will survive any future attempts to remove him. The final decider here will ultimately be what it always is–results. If their performance in November demonstrates success in electing Republicans, particularly Tom Latham, then their style and methods will be vindicated and they will be lauded. Should they not meet expectations, and should they fail to deliver a number of victories similar to their very successful predecessors–they will be quickly voted out in January.
Conservatives are often fond of saying that results, not good intentions, are what matters. What we have here is a perfect embodiment of this…as it should be.
by | Mar 9, 2012
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.
by Steven Waechter | Mar 7, 2012
I recently heard a radio commercial urging me to contact various members of Congress to voice my support for tax credits connected to the wind energy industry. On a lark, I went to the Iowa Legislature website and searched active bills for the word “wind,†and received several dozen hits, many of which seemed to be focused on state tax credits for manufacturing and installing wind turbines. Both state and federal politicians seem to be tripping over themselves to get into the wind energy craze.
Back in 2010 Alliant Energy was petitioning to be allowed to increase the rates they charged for electricity, and one of the supporting reasons they put forward was the $150 million project called the Whispering Willow-East wind farm in Franklin county. This was big news in Newton, where I was living at the time, as Newton is both the location of some wind turbine manufacturers, and within the area that would be affected by the rate increase.
This serves as perhaps a perfect litmus test for how people think about economics. If you are a progressive or a neo-Keynesian, then your reaction is likely to be that this is entirely appropriate; these wind farms are being built for our benefit, so of course we must pay. If you are an environmentalist or a socialist, then, of course electricity should cost more in your mind. As you are increasing your standard of living, at the unfair expense of the environment or the proletariat, it would be akin to questioning whether people should be locked up for committing assault, wouldn’t it?
If you believe in Austrian economics, or just in free-market pricing in general, then this situation would seem a bit odd. The supply of electricity is presumably increasing because of new wind farms. Increases in supply tend to reduce pressure on prices, not cause them to increase. Yet here, the new wind projects are being cited as a reason to increase the rates per kilowatt hour to the end users. They have built a wind farm, and now demand to pay for it by charging more for electricity still produced mainly by coal which could have been provided for the old price if they hadn‘t bothered to build the wind farm.
That is how capital investment works; if you couldn’t make money by building houses in the current market, but you build a bunch of houses anyway, it doesn’t cause the price of houses to go up. Wind energy doesn’t seem to follow the script of wealth creation.
The rule of thumb seems to be that a wind turbine costs about $1 million per nameplate megawatt of capacity, so if a turbine has 3 megawatts of stated capacity then it would cost about $3 million. Then you have to factor in what the industry refers to as the “capacity factor,†which is the percentage of the nameplate capacity that the turbine actually produces, and in Iowa the capacity factor is said to be about thirty percent. In plain terms, that means that if you want one megawatt of electricity, you need a three-megawatt wind turbine. However, it isn’t as simple as that. Although Iowa might be the “Saudi Arabia of Wind†– proclaimed as such by people who have likely never been to Saudi Arabia, nor had difficulty paying their electric bills – our winds are not constant.
When the wind doesn’t blow, the turbines don’t turn. The same is true for when the wind is too strong – wind turbines are equipped with a braking mechanism to stop them during high winds. If that brake fails, the turbine blades can rattle the entire tower to pieces, if the generator doesn’t catch on fire first – which you should look up on the internet because it is an interesting sight.
As a result of all the shortcomings of wind turbines, wind power costs about $90 per megawatt hour, compared to about $60 per megawatt hour for coal and even less than that for natural gas-generated electricity, yet we are told we need to fill our skylines with expensive wind turbines which spend most of their lives perfectly still and producing nothing – and then charge us for the cost of the electricity these intensely ugly things don’t produce. The Iowa Wind Energy Association has a goal to increase Iowa’s wind capacity from 4,500 megawatts to 20,000 megawatts by 2030 – so we can enjoy 6,000 megawatts of electricity doled out in intermittent intervals.
Germany announced its intent to decommission all of its nuclear power stations after the Fukushima incident, and the German government has been very supportive of wind energy, but not a single coal plant has been shut down. In fact, Germany is replacing its nuclear capacity with new coal power plants – as many as 26 new coal power plants are planned. The wind, like the sea, is a fickle lover as it would seem.
According to wind energy supporters, expanding wind energy creates jobs, and therefore none of the shortcomings in the technology or the economics are considered to matter. This attitude seems to be the source of the consensus among political leaders – or at least the appearance of consensus – as politicians go along with the wind energy movement lest they be accused of being “against jobs.†There are even pictures of wind turbines on Iowa’s new driver’s license design.
The wind energy addiction will end up being much the same as the other fads. State and federal tax credits, grants, and green energy targets are directing capital towards these wind energy projects. The jobs created in the short term are visible to politicians seeking reelection, but the damage is diffused across the entire economy and the effects won’t be felt until later. They can see the turbine blades going down the interstate, but not the higher utility bills of their constituents – including employers – nor the layoffs when the negative financial effects become impossible to ignore. Americans are too broke to pay for expensive wind-generated electricity, governments are too broke to continue subsidizing these projects, and the economy is too broke to carry an industrial sector which generates no profits, no useable increases in electricity, and no discernable tax revenue.
Wind turbines don’t increase the standard of living; in fact they seem to make energy more expensive. They only work intermittently, wear out rather quickly without expensive maintenance, and are heavily dependent on government credits and grants for their manufacture and installation. They have also been known to kill eagles, which is reason enough to hate anything.
The future might be filled with wind turbines, but that won’t be a positive thing. They are too expensive and too underproductive to provide electricity in quantities and at prices that are necessary to make them profitable. Elected officials at all levels need to move past the rhetoric of the wind energy craze and do their own research into this matter.
Unless they do so, they have no business voting to appropriate public funds to support the construction of more public relations kitsch at $1 million per nameplate megawatt. Even now attention is turning towards natural gas as the real driver of future energy production while a combination of better exploration techniques and hydraulic fracturing makes natural gas properly cheap.
Alliant itself is looking at building a new natural gas power plant – in Iowa.
by | Mar 2, 2012
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 FarÂ
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.
by | Feb 8, 2012
In hopes of making a seamless transition in leadership, the odds of using an already scheduled meeting of the State Central Committee to choose a new leader is becoming increasingly likely.
Fellow blogger, and State Central Committee member, David Chung is all over the story. Please check out the link below that will take you to his site HawkeyeGOP.com. I have been a reader of his for a while now–besides being a reasoned voice from inside the Party, he has shown absolute fairness in dealing with all issues.
Not only does he touch on the rules governing the process, he gives a brief rundown of the three known candidates to replace Matt Strawn, who recentley stepped down as Chairman of the Party.
Click here for David Chung’s story at HawkeyeGop.com
by | Feb 1, 2012
Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn has just stepped down from his position as leader of the party.
Over the last several weeks there have been public calls for him to step aside following the handling of the razor-close Iowa Caucus results earlier this year. Though the voices calling for his resignation were relatively few, they were also very loud. Along with the public calls for action, high ranking Central Committee members were very disappointed with the handling of the Caucus results, and were internally seeking changes at the top.
Below is the official press release sent out by former-Chairman Strawn, a link to his video statement, and the press release issued by Gov. Branstad.
Official Strawn Press Release
January 31, 2012
Dear Iowa Republican:
In December 2008, when I campaigned to serve as your Chairman, my top goal was to make the Iowa GOP a relevant force again in Iowa politics by ushering in an era where the Republican Party returned to winning elections without betraying our conservative principles.
Over the past three plus years, we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. We witnessed sweeping Republican electoral victories at all levels. We saw an explosion in new Republican voters with an unprecedented 34 consecutive months of Iowa GOP voter registration gains. We kept the Iowa Caucuses First-in-the-Nation. We broke fundraising records, hosted the largest Republican presidential caucus in history, and for the first-time ever, the Iowa GOP co-hosted three nationally televised presidential debates that were watched by millions. Most importantly, Iowa Republicans accomplished all this and more working together as a team.
Simply put, your Iowa GOP is better off than it was four years ago thanks to outstanding team work. Your Iowa GOP is a relevant force again in Iowa politics. Your Iowa GOP is winning elections with leaders who are advancing our principled agenda. Your Iowa GOP is in a position to re-elect our members of Congress, win an Iowa Senate majority, and make Iowa’s six electoral votes the national battleground in the 2012 presidential campaign.
While the election wins, fundraising successes and media appearances are the aspects of being Chairman that gain the most attention, the most rewarding aspect of my service was the opportunity to travel our state and get to know the people of Iowa. The strength of the rebuilt Iowa GOP rests in the hands of the thousands of committed volunteer activists who give their time, treasure and talents to make Iowa a better place by working to elect public servants who share our values and principles.
The Iowa GOP designs its position of Chairman to be volunteer in nature. But over the past three years I have treated the privilege of serving as your Chairman as a full-time calling. There’s no question the job of rebuilding our party was a huge one, and one to which I committed every minute that was necessary to succeed.
It is only because the Iowa GOP has returned as a strong and relevant voice in Iowa politics that I am now able to evaluate all the competing priorities in my personal, business and political life. The party is strong and has the resources in place for victory in November. Now is the time to transition to new leadership.
Effective February 10, I will be ending my service as your Chairman. For this fifth generation Iowan and Benton County farm kid, serving as your Chairman has been an honor, a privilege and the opportunity of a lifetime.
To victory,
Matthew N. Strawn
   **Click for Strawn video**
     **Gov. Branstad press release thanking Matt Strawn**
What had promised to be an explosive evening at the Polk County central committee meeting Tuesday night never really materialized.
