Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

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

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

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

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

The Press Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Politics and Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection

How is it possible to resist the charms of any elected official offering the dual benefits of fairness and protection? After all, is not being treated equitably, while simultaneously being spared the pain of those who would seek to harm us, not of ultimate worth? Fairness must certainly be the quintessential American value, right? And our entire system of justice; is it not specifically designed to bring both fairness and protection?

Over the next year and a half we will hear the word fairness as if the word encapsulates the complete and final animation of the American ideal. We will also be offered a basket overflowing with governmental “protections” from rapacious bogeymen, both known and unknown. This little “benefits package” will come neatly wrapped in the form of a vague threat that would have us believe any alternative to this package would immediately result in enslavement. It is only demons that would offer us, the American people, anything less.

The real wonder in all of this is how Thomas Jefferson seemed to have completely missed the significance of the beatific vision of the liberal left. To have settled for such suboptimal and simple notions as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must clearly validate the marked progression in our political thinking. Alas, we are talking about a couple of centuries of human achievement. If we can build an iPad, we must certainly be able to build a perfectly integrated, transparent, and high-functioning system of governance. We call this “political science,” as if it was somehow scientific.

Hope and change was the first chapter. Fairness and protection are now emerging as the second chapter. The only remaining question we now have is in determining which of these sets of notions is the most utterly naïve. There is, however, no remaining question as to which is more dangerous. Chapter Two is an unmitigated societal, moral and economic horror show.

Like hope and change, fairness and protection are proffered without definition or object. One man’s version of fairness is another man’s version of purgatory. To suggest that protections are being afforded is to beg the obvious question, “Protection from what or from whom?” The suggestion, of course, is that the government will become both the ultimate dispenser of fairness, and the protector from anything that is “not-government.” This is a binary universe in which the government is the center of virtue, and everything and everyone else is either mundane or oppressive.

In a hypothetical world where half the citizenry are drunken bums and the other half are productive and hard-working citizens, what represents a fair tax rate? Apparently, there is a fair answer to this question, albeit that the obvious answer seems to elude most of us common people. Not to fear, in the liberal mind, they have the answer. And if regulation doubles the price of that which we seek to consume, we must presume that the level of “protection” is worth paying for.  Just ask them. They not only have all the answers, they are willing to impose them on everyone else.

They spin a web of myths. It is only unfortunate that these myths are so seemingly beguiling.

When Mr. Jefferson offered his modest notions of a sustainable basis for societal success, he understood that the government can only create a set of conditions where people can optimize their unique futures. He had seen the fairness and protection “themes” played out in history and seen the implications of the associated governmental arrogance. Mr. Jefferson was willing to look at humanity in a more positive light than many of his contemporaries. Even he could not begin to fathom the negative implications of what is now being offered as the standard offering of the Liberal Left.

When the markets create a willing buyer, and a willing seller, at a given price, most of us would agree that the “trade” was fair. On the other side of the equation, when the government intervenes in anything, it is not fairness and protection that we receive. It is rather just someone’s version of coercion. The liberal definition of fairness is just another form of arbitrary and completely baseless enslavement. It cannot be heard in any other way.

Fairness is only found in established conditions. It is never found in a quest for derived outcomes. When liberals transmute the definition of fairness into an effect, as opposed to its native state as a cause, they turn the world inside out. Viewing fairness as an effect is, by definition, fundamentally unfair. And the result is always predictable, and never pretty.


    Log in