In Iowa Politics this week on the Iowa Legislative Hour, hosts Kevin Hall and Art Smith talk with State House Representatives Jake Highfill of Johnston and Gus Vander Linden of Oskaloosa. Â Topics included Education Reform, Gun Control, Candidates for US Senate, and much more.
If you enjoy watching this, think about watching (or just listening) LIVE on Thursday’s from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM atÂ Web Cast One Live! Â Your phone calls during the show are welcome if you have questions for our elected officials.
Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds has announced she is not running for the open US Senate on November 4th 2014.Â The field will form quickly once Steve King makes a decision, which for the good of the Party should come one way or another very soon.Â Some prior analysis of this race by The Conservative Reader: Iowa can be read here.Â Her complete statement is below:
When Governor Branstad chose me as his Lieutenant Governor in 2010, I was honored to be a part of a team that would put our state back on track with a focus on job creation, making our schools the best in the nation, and restoring stability and predictability within Iowa’s budget.
Thanks to your support and your help, we are well on our way. We inherited a $900 million budget gap and turned it around into a significant ending balance. Our innovative education reform measures continue advancing through the Legislature, and once signed into law, our students will receive the world-class education they deserve. This year, we expect to enact major property tax reforms that will reduce property taxes for all classes of property.
I am proud to Chair the Governor’s Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) initiative, where thousands of Iowa students are gaining the knowledge and skills they need to compete in a 21st Century economy.
And just today â€“ the Governor and I attended a groundbreaking for a new Facebook facility, while Google announced another multi-million-dollar expansion. Since the governor and I were elected, we have seen more than $6 billion in capital investments in Iowa â€“ and we are just getting started!Governor Branstad and I still have a lot we want to accomplish on behalf you, the people of Iowa.
That’s why, after serious and thoughtful discussions with family, friends, supporters and constituents, I have decided to remain as Lieutenant Governor and will not seek a seat in the United States Senate.
I appreciate all the support, prayers and well-wishes you have given me as I have considered a run for U.S. Senate. I truly believe that my focus needs to remain on being Lieutenant Governor and working with Governor Branstad as we continue to move Iowa forward.
Thanks, and I look forward to visiting with you in your community soon.
Despite both Parties rhetoric to the contrary, I am hearing the chances of any significant Commercial Tax Reform in Iowa is dwindling.
Though legislation has passed each chamber, the Conference Committee tasked with finding a compromise both sides are comfortable with will struggle mightily.Â This is largely due to the fact that the structureÂ for reforming theÂ tax code thatÂ passed by each chamber are not compatible with each other.Â While Senate Democrats are insisting on a tax credit formula which businesses apply for and are granted, the House Republicans and the Governor want changes to the percentage assessed values are taxed at as well as lower caps on local property taxes.
I highly doubt that either side will give much on their chosen structure for reform, and it is hard to imagine a combination of these approaches being melded together without a confusing mess being created.Â Additionally, as desperate as Republicans are to deliver lower taxes to their constituents, there is a feeling in the caucus that passingÂ a half-measure nowÂ will make it harder to re-visit the issue in future sessions to achieve their true goal.Â Conversely, Democrats would not mind getting their tax credit approached passed and fighting future battles with Republicans on increasing the value of the credits as they come up.
The Big Picture
After essentially controlling Iowa government for years with only a Senate majority, I don’t see anyway that House Republicans and Gov. Branstad can cave and allow Democrats to dictate the structure of tax reform–the one issue Republicans unquestionably own over Democrats.
As I’ve said here before, I do believe that Sen. Gronstal has a stronger hand than many realize.Â Much like the Fiscal Cliff debate late last year where CongressionalÂ Republicans were forced to give in, Iowa Republicans are in the same tough position of seeing taxes rise if nothing is done.Â This fact transfers a significant amount of leverage to Senate Democrats and Sen. Gronstal is operating accordingly.Â As long as Senate Democrats perceive they can hold a majority while taxes rise this is the posture that Republicans will face. Looking long term, if Republicans are unable to extract major compromises from Democrats in the conference Committee–which I don’t expect–I am comfortable with once again waiting on a bill altogether.
Though it will be harder than in 2012 and is far from a given, with Branstad on the ballot in 2014 there is a shot at winning the Senate and a likelihood of holding the House. If a bill was done with Republicans holding both chambers and the Governors officeÂ clearly the dollar amount and scope of tax relief be much larger.Â Perhaps more importantly there would also be a significant flat tax component and an opportunity to end the system of automatic future tax increases we have now.Â The leverage that would be gained in future partisan tax scuffles by doing so would be worth it’s weight in gold.
Research and House Majority Leader Statement
The main bill in focus can be read here (SF 295)…and by the way I dare anyone to read this bill and tell me we can’t find a better way to write tax policy. In contrast, here is the Dix/Whitver optional Flat Tax bill offered earlier this session (SF 443).Â Should this approach to our taxes be taken most citizens interaction with the tax code could be limited to lines 1-35 of this bill.Â A welcome thought to a large majority regardless of Party.
Below isÂ the full release from House Majority Leader Linda Upmyer regarding this topic:
Delivering significant property tax relief to the hardworking taxpayers of Iowa has been one of our top priorities since gaining the Majority three years ago. Each year we have passed numerous proposals to the Senate, but unfortunately have not been able to reach a consensus. I am optimistic that this will be the year for true reform.
This week the House passed a comprehensive tax relief proposal that provides significant property tax relief across Iowa and helps reduce Iowansâ€™ income taxes.Â The bill, SF 295, does not shift the tax burden between classes of property, but instead ensures that relief and reform is permanent, predictable, meaningful, and affects all classes of property.Â If no action is taken on property tax relief, Iowaâ€™s taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a $2.6 billion property tax increase over the next 10 years, with the majority of that falling to homeowners.
Under our current state tax structure, residential property taxpayers pay approximately half of Iowaâ€™s property taxes.Â While our proposal provides property tax relief across all classes of property, residential property taxpayers would benefit the most under this plan.
Currently, in terms of K-12 school funding, the state covers 87.5% of the school foundation formula.Â The remaining amount needed for our schools to operate falls on the backs of local property taxpayers.Â Our proposal increases the amount of state aid going to our schools and decreases the reliance on local property taxes.Â As a result, local property taxpayers will be protected from future tax increases.
Our proposal would also implement a 20 percent rollback of taxable value on commercial and industrial property, which would occur over a period of four years, at five percent each year.Â This would provide approximately $339 million in property tax relief when fully implemented.Â Additionally, our plan would include a standing unlimited appropriation to backfill lost revenue from the rollback to local governments.
As previously mentioned, the bill also aims to reduce Iowansâ€™ income taxes by giving individuals a choice to file under the current system or to use a 4.5 percent flat tax option.Â This legislation makes Iowaâ€™s tax system simpler, flatter, and fairer.Â Under this proposal, each taxpayer is given a choice that will enable them to do what makes the most sense for their own household budget.
Finally, our proposal would send dollars back to Iowa taxpayers that have been collected in the Taxpayer Trust Fund.Â Only after the Legislature and Governor have agreed to a final budget that meets the priorities of Iowans and funds the stateâ€™s obligations, any excess revenue would be returned to Iowaâ€™s hardworking taxpayers.
SF 295 passed the House with bipartisan support and was sent back to the Senate for their consideration.Â We look forward to continuing this discussion, listening to all ideas and proposals, and are hopeful a resolution will soon be reached that provides much-needed and real tax relief to all Iowans.
Question: What has happened so far at the Statehouse this session?
Answer: Mostly a whole lot of nothing.
With potentially as little as three weeks left before they gavel out this has been one of the most uneventful sessions since I began following them closely.Â There could still be some fireworks in store as the larger ticket items get discussed, but as it stands now nearly everything Governor Branstad has signed into law has been with near unanimous consent from both Parties.Â In fact, of the 36 bills he has signed so far most have been technical or clerical items passed with no dissentâ€”and all but a couple have hadÂ no more than 3 no votes between the two chambers (notable exceptions being SF 184 and HF 160).
Conservatives Left with Little to Cheer About
The fact that divided government is not producing sweeping changes is hardly surprising, but getting no movement whatsoever on traditionally non-entrenched ideological issues is disheartening.Â For me personally these disappointments include the first funnel costing any chanceÂ of banning Automated Traffic Enforcement and the second funnel claiming the Voter ID bill.Â Both these issues have a clear majority of public support (Voter ID routinely gets well over 70% in public polls), and despite this couldnâ€™t even receive the dignity of a vote.
Additionally, the Education Reform effort (yes, even the version the Republican House passed with no inter-Party dissent) is a â€œsolutionâ€ few true Conservatives can embrace.Â Firstly, it is dumping $200 million more dollars into a system that already has received a 35.4% funding increase since 2002â€”with no discernible benefit in most districts.Â And secondly, the kind of actionable teacher evaluation, similar to what exists in the private sector, is nowhere to be found.Â Instead, in my view, what this reform offers is a largely a bunch of feel goodÂ jargon about â€œladdersâ€, â€œcareer pathwaysâ€, â€œmentorsâ€, and â€œmaster teachersâ€â€”now does that sound like a recipe for fixing a failing school?
In some way this issue has been absurdly overcomplicated, how aboutÂ teachers just teach kids the information in their textbooks like miraculously you were able to do in the 1990’s and we’ll call it even.Â In fact, prove you can do so and we will give you a nice raise…you knowÂ the way it has worked forÂ all the rest of us inÂ the private sectorÂ since our birth.
While it is true that many strong home schooling amendments got passed by the House, A) the big ones wonâ€™t make it to the Governorâ€™s desk, and B) even if they did it still wouldnâ€™t make this effort worthwhile.Â And while there are a few bright spots (HF 625 which expands STO’s), there was no movement of Sen. Zaunâ€™s proposal last session to give parents true schools choice, nor was there any effort made to ensure we have strict 3rd grade retention for reading proficiency.
Tax Reform the Big Prizeâ€¦But Likely to Elude Again
Just like last session, there was talk by both sides at the beginning that something needed to get done here, but the writing is on the wall that it wonâ€™t.
Largely this is because the players and the policies they are pushing for are essentially unchanged from last year.Â Additionally I am starting to think that Sen. Gronstal knows he controls only one branchâ€”but perhaps has the trump card in this standoff.
The way I have started to look at this is to see the similarities between this situation and the fiscal cliff scenario faced by Republicans on the Federal level at the end of last year.Â If you recall, Republicans were forced into caving because the specific position they were inâ€”if no deal was struck taxes on everyone in the country would go up on January 1st.Â Similarly, here in Iowa if nothing gets done our tax rates will continue to climbâ€”a reality that would surely bother Republicans more than Democrats.Â Not only does this give Gronstal more leverage in cutting a deal to avoid the tax hikes, if he can manage to stave off a deal until rates are raised he is in the position of deciding then who â€œdeservesâ€ tax cuts.Â As frustrating as this tactic is for Republicans, as long as high taxes donâ€™t cost Democrats their majority it is truly brilliant politics.
The TruthÂ As I see ItÂ
I would love to be able to say everything is looking up here in Iowa and nationwide, but the evidence disagrees.Â Coming off a brutal performance last November when Mitt Romney was unable to defeat a president with a terrible record and RepublicansÂ failed to take the Iowa Senate, we are now seeing the results.Â This legislative session is almost a mirror copy of the last and the chancesÂ of anything passing at all are slim–and unfortunately the chances of passing any significant Conservative policy is hopeless.Â Simply put, at the moment the landscape is virtually barren when it comes to potential political victories.
Elections indeed have consequences–and Conservatives are feeling them now.Â We must do better as a Party going forward–2014 awaits and brings another chance to make a profound and positive legislative impact.
In Iowa Politics this week on the Iowa Legislative Hour, hosts Kevin Hall and Art Smith (sans goatee and camera) talk with State House Representatives John Landon of Ankeny and Jake Highfill, along with State Senator Brad Zaun. Â Topics included the final confirmation votes for the Governor’s Regents Board Appointments, Property and Income Tax Reform, Health Care Reform, Education Reform, the likelihood of a short session, and much more.
If you enjoy watching this, think about watching (or just listening) LIVE on Thursday’s from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM at Web Cast One Live! Â Your phone calls during the show are welcome if you have questions for our elected officials.
Though it will fall short of the intense attention we receive during Presidential years, November 2014 in Iowa will develop into a fierce battleground for both political parties.Â In spite of the gubernatorial election on the ballot the prize for each side will be the open US Senate seat vacated by Tom Harkin.
While it is a virtual certainty that BruceÂ Braley will be the Democrat candidate in this race the Republican field is wide open, with no one yet confirming a run.Â As it stands now Rep. Steve King has been given the â€œfirst right of refusalâ€ by fellow potential candidates Kim Reynolds and Bill Northey, andÂ it isÂ widely believed he will have decided by May 1st.Â One way or another, the field will become clear soon after.Â In the meantime, here is a first look at the dynamics if the matchup were King vs. Braley.
On last weekendâ€™s Iowa Press Steve King referred to a Republican winning the seat as a â€œslightly uphill battleâ€â€”and the numbers indeed bear this out.Â Though they were highly inflated due to it being a Presidential election year, the cumulative votes cast last year in Iowaâ€™s four Congressional districts reveal the Republican will be starting in anÂ electoral hole.Â In total the four Congressional Democratic candidates (Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, and Vilsack) received 772,387 votes, while the four Republican candidates (Lange, Archer, Latham, and King) received 726,505 votes (D+45,882).
Obviously this is too broad a measure to be definitive but it does give a feel for the obstacles the Republican will face.Â Far more informative is looking at how Braley and King faired in their individual races.Â In this scenario the candidate and the electorate in their districts remain the same and the only variable that changes is the opponent.Â What the numbers show is that Bruce Braley is a better performing candidate than Steve Kingâ€”something that will likely come as a surprise to many Republicans.
Last cycle Braley went in with a 25,420 voter registration advantage in HD 1 over Ben Lange but won by 59,957â€”beating the numbers by 34,537.Â Meanwhile King went in with a 50,396 voter registration advantage in HD 4 over Christie Vilsack but won by only 30,593 votesâ€”losing the numbers by 19,803.
Yes Braley and Vilsackâ€™s numbers were surely inflated due to Obama being on the ballot, and King and Lange were done no favors by Romneyâ€™s trouble with Independents, but there is still cause for concern.Â This is due to the fact that some of this inflated total was surely offset by King facing a far weaker opponent than Braleyâ€”Lange was a proven campaigner who came within 4,000 votes of beating Braley in 2010 while Vilsack proved to be an awful candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
These facts are certainly not to suggest a Republican cannot win the seat, they merely offer some context on the difficulties involved and likely explain the caution potential candidates are proceeding with.
Braley vs. King on Paper
The perplexing thing about this potential matchup is that on paper King is a far superior candidate to Braley.Â While King started an earth moving construction company from scratch, Braley is a trial lawyer and former head of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association.Â Though it is true King has a visceral way of approaching issues and a knack for the ill-worded statement, Braleyâ€™s voting record reveals he is without a doubt a west-coast Liberal who just happens to reside in Iowa.Â In fact, besides voting with Democrats and Obamaâ€™s agenda 98% of the time in 2008, 99% in 2009, and 98% in 2010, since January 2007 he has voted 91% of the time with Nancy Pelosi.Â Among these votes of course are Cap & Trade, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, and authorizing more than $6 trillion in debt over the last four years.
The number one objective for the campaign of whatever Republican takes on Braley will be getting the word out on his voting record.Â And if the above facts arenâ€™t enough evidence of his poor decision making for Independents in Iowaâ€”you can add he was one of the first to endorse fellow trial lawyer John Edwards for president in 2008.
In many Republican circles it has become a common belief that Steve King canâ€™t win a statewide raceâ€”I do not concur.Â Perhaps Iâ€™d see more truth in this if the candidate on the other side was a moderate instead of one of the most Liberal politicians in the countryâ€”funny how we never hear Bruce Braley canâ€™t win a statewide race.
That being said, I am of the belief that our strongest candidate by a longshot would be Kim Reynoldsâ€”and we would not risk a House seat in the process.Â While he would surely have a shot if he ran, undoubtedly the media would exclusively focus on Kingâ€™s past statements and ignore Braleyâ€™s voting record.
In the end I predict that King will decide against running.Â Whether he proves me wrong or not, whoever takes up this task will have to run hard.Â Though this is a realistic opportunity for Republicans the numbers show that it indeed will be a â€œslightly uphill battleâ€.
Proving his concern about our countryâ€™s national debt wasnâ€™t mere campaign lip service, Congressman Tom Latham continued to warn against the perils of a $17 trillion debt in Urbandale on Friday.Â He joined an event hosted by the Iowa chapter of Fix The Debtand toured the facility of Jon Troenâ€™s ColorFX company.
Speaking to a group of ColorFX employees Latham seemed hopeful a long-term solution could be agreed to this year saying, â€œI think there is a real chance of getting a bi-partisan deal passed.Â It has to be done to ensure our nationâ€™s economic and fiscal security.â€Â As the owner of a company trying to navigate through an increasingly shaky economy, ColorFX owner Jon Troen fully concurred by stating, â€œThe national debt affects everyone and it has a direct impact on how small business owners like me run and manage their operations.â€
Mr. Lathamâ€™s participation in these types of forums should be heartening to all Iowans, regardless of their political persuasion, who realize continued record deficit spending is fatal to our entire population.Â I have reported here before that a close look at Rep. Lathamâ€™s voting record the last several years reveals a rock-solid fiscal conservative unwilling to mortgage the future for temporary political gains.Â With so many politicians these days willing to speak one way around election time and then consistently vote the other way when the spotlight fades, Iowa is lucky to have someone willing to both speak out and vote for their convictions.
To kick off the IWEA conference at HyVee Hall, both the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor took turns at the podium to celebrate Iowaâ€™s commitment to wind power. I was there to take notes and to take a look around.
The Governorâ€™s comments were short, citing Iowaâ€™s adoption of wind energy standards, the lease royalty income for landowners, the jobs associated with the wind energy sector, Iowaâ€™s exporting of wind-generated power, and used a comment on the importance of the STEM curriculum (science, technology, engineering, and math) to introduce Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds, for whom STEM is something of a pet project.
The Lieutenant Governorâ€™s comments centered around education; preparing the young for the jobs of the â€œknowledge-based economy,â€ which I put in quotes because she said that exactly, and this happens to be one of the phrases that triggers irritation in your favorite derelict lawyer – turned political dissident.
The idea behind the knowledge-based economy comes from the plan for the post-Cold War America. As the Soviet Union wound down, the plans for a global, integrated economy that were shelved shortly after the Second World War were revisited.
America, which up until then had relied on its overwhelming industrial output for its wealth, decided that the new comparative advantage would be in the â€œknowledge economy.â€ Governments, businesses, and foundations associated with education began planning academic curricula for the new economy which they imagined would take effect.
Because Americans would be far too rich from tech stocks and mortgaged houses to bother with the dirty fingernails of manufacturing, those who needed income would have to cater to the needs of the newly wealthy and the best jobs for the new service economy would only be open to the educated.
Thus, we were saddled with an educational model designed for an economy that was to be designed in accordance with political speculations and not real human needs, and the entire thing blew up. NAFTA turned factory workers into store clerks and Mexican subsistence farmers into illegal immigrants, college turned young Americans into Helots, and the jobs of the â€œknowledge-based economyâ€ have not materialized except inside the government and government-supported industries. (See â€œThink College is Critical? Bureau of Labor Statistics Projections Suggest Otherwiseâ€)
Public-Private Partnership. Read: State Corporatist Socialism
The final comment by the Lieutenant Governor was a pitch for the public-private project called the Skilled Iowa Initiative. I checked out their website and apparently the entire initiative is to promote the National Career Readiness Certificate.
Brought to you by the people from ACT, it allows you to prove that you can read and add, which you used to be able to prove by graduating from the second grade. Then again, you canâ€™t get â€œPlatinum Certificationâ€ from the second grade.
As I walked through the main hall and examined the exhibitor booths, the thing that jumped out at me was just how much of the wind energy industry that really isnâ€™t the wind energy industry.
Construction companies, community colleges, environmental consultants, computer services, and even law firms are in on the act. The IWEA appears to have close relationships with the Nyemaster firm – who had a booth there – as well as the Brown Winick firm – the IWEA website indicates that a couple of their directors are partners at Brown Winick – both of Des Moines.
Hippies often like to cite Dwight Eisenhower in regard to defense spending, particularly his comment that â€œIn the Councils of Government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence – whether sought or unsought – by the Military-Industrial Complex.â€
If you watch his entire Farewell Address – which is about 15 minutes and available on You tube – you will see that Ike was warning about the situation we have right now; an economy too heavily dominated by the public sector, where government subsidy is substituted for private sector growth, and when private interests grow dependent on certain government programs and thus become vociferous lobbyists for continuing their own line items.
â€œWeighed in the light of a broader considerationâ€
What have we done, besides building another state-sponsored pressure group? Turning off the tax credits would provoke hostility from the entire structure of energy consultants, lawyers, and lobbyists.
But, then again, who would want to upset the apple cart; these are â€œindustrial jobsâ€ after all, and landowners are earning royalties, and we now export wind-generated electricity (the United States is also the largest exporter of military hardware), so when electric bills go up to cover the installation costs of these turbines ( as reported by the Cedar Rapids Gazette, â€œAlliant Energy seeks 13.8 percent rate increase,â€) well, that is just progress.
This week Kevin Hall and I had Senator Brad Zaun of Urbandale and Senator Tim Kapucian of Keystone. Â We talked about the recommendation from the Eduction Committee regarding Governor Branstad’s choices for the Board fo Regents, a number of key Agriculture topics including CSR 2 and Water Quality, the upcoming debate of Medicaid Expansion and efforts to convince the IOC to reinstate wrestling. Â Great conversation and information on the Iowa Legislative Hour!
The battle between traditional Republicans and Libertarians that began in Iowa on Caucus night in 2012 has risen to a destructive level and needs to be addressed.Â If it werenâ€™t so publicly obvious I would call this an opinionâ€”but the reality is itâ€™s a fact.Â Â What has transpired to this point is a lot of bomb throwing from each side and very little, if any, attempts to search for the potential common ground that would result in, at the least, a truceâ€”and perhaps even a mutually beneficial alliance.
The feud started when, after having a relatively modest presence in 2008, Ron Paul inspired Libertarians organized and made a concerted effort to acquire as many county central committee seats as possible on caucus night.Â Perhaps surprising even themselves, they encountered very little resistance and were hugely successful in many precincts.
Since that night in June the hostility level has ratcheted up several notches, and I believe both sides share some responsibility in what has become a very non-productive situation.Â Initially I understood the reaction and the lashing out from Republicansâ€”they were taken by surprise, infiltrated, lost a good deal of influence they had taken for granted, and their tone at first was a reasonable natural response.
On the other side, Libertarians went on to essentially take over RPI and gain a presence at the county leadership level.Â In the aftermath I feel there was a lack of reaching out to traditional Republicans that could have lessened the wounds, resulted in more unity, and ultimately led to more victories in November.Â The bottom line is they came up short on election night, and if they thought prior they didnâ€™t need inner-Party cooperation to win House and Senate races they were clearly proven wrong.
What makes this battle so maddening is that each side could have benefited greatly by working together.Â This was proven by the returns from the Iowa Senate races where only a few hundred more votes would have led to Republicans winning a majorityâ€”and thus controlling the Governor’s Office and both Legislative Branches in Iowa.Â Had this come to pass, both factions would today be much closer to implementing their principles into legislation.Â At a minimum traffic cameras would be banned, taxes would be lower, and the proposals being debated on education reform would look much different.
Each Side Shares Some Blame
For what itâ€™s worth here is how I see each sideâ€™s culpability in this conflict:
Where Traditional Republicans are to blame
â€¢Â Not enough interest at a grassroots level on caucus night to even fill central committee seats.
â€¢Â Rhetoric has been too harsh and focused on a small number of political operativesâ€”by extension this has served to alienate libertarian leaning voters who may be persuaded to support the Republican candidate in their district.
â€¢Â Lack of success in building the Party base and, so far as I know, doing very little youth outreach.
â€¢Â Especially at the Federal level, the chance was blown to control government expansion and spending throughout the 2000â€™s.
â€¢Â Not realizing that Conservative and Tea Party Republicans are now closer on the spectrum to Libertarians than they are to traditional Republicans.
Where Libertarians are to blame
â€¢Â Not enough reaching out by new leadership after taking over RPI.
â€¢Â Rhetoric has been too harshâ€”sending mass e-mails impugning the personal integrity of media members is not the way to conduct yourself.
â€¢Â Too many rank and file Libertarians in the movement donâ€™t care about winning elections and are uninterested in working to shape the Republican Partyâ€”if a Libertarian is not on the ballot they disappear.Â The all or nothing approach is irrational, and in fact is counter-productive if you hold strong convictions.
â€¢Â Lack of realistic policy goalsâ€”the Federal budget isnâ€™t going to be balanced in a year, nor will we go from marijuana being illegal to all drugs being decriminalized in a 2 year timespan.
â€¢Â Complete lack of pragmatism from many rank and file in the Libertarian movement.Â To me the litmus test for this are Libertarians who could not bring themselves to vote for Mitt Romney, even though he was running against a president that was the proven antithesis of everything they claim to stand for.Â You can say what you want about Romney, and I get the criticisms, but the guy ran on the Paul Ryan budget for heaven sakeâ€”no more aggressive approach will ever be championed by a presidential candidate (prior to a total economic collapse that is).
Whether you agree with my specific assessments of blame or not doesnâ€™t really matter.Â What matters is that both sides start attempting to bridge this divide well before the 2014 elections.
Personally I donâ€™t have a dog in this increasingly silly fight.Â What I want is for Conservative principals to be implemented and this can only happen if Democrats are defeated in elections.Â When it comes to primaries I subscribe to the William F. Buckley philosophy of supporting the most Conservative candidate who can win.
If Conservatives, traditional Republicans, and Libertarians all followed this mantra in both primaries and general elections all would benefit and success would be had.Â If segments of each faction continue being concerned about what kind of Republican is on a general election ballot (unless there is a specific and compelling reason to withhold support), then Democrats will win.Â As long as Democrats win society will continue to get more progressive and taxes and spending will riseâ€”itâ€™s just that simple.