Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

The 5 Senate Races Crucial For Control:  Breakdown of SD 49

The 5 Senate Races Crucial For Control: Breakdown of SD 49

((For a look at all the critical races–Click for TCR:Iowa’s complete Iowa Senate overview))

The Candidates

Andrew Naeve (R)  vs.  Rita Hart (D)

Andrew Naeve, who returned to Iowa after playing basketball at Cornell College, is already a political veteran at the age of 27—two years ago he ran for the former incarnation of this seat and only lost by 70 votes after a recount.  Rita Hart is a long-time educator and member of the Clinton County Planning and Zoning Commission.

The District

Sitting on the Eastern-most edge of Iowa, Senate District 49 is composed of all of Clinton County and the Northern portion of Scott County.  Democrats hold the registered voter advantage by 3,721.  The breakdown is: (D-14,620) ( R-10,899) (NP-18,769).

The Race

This race pits two good candidates against each other for the right to represent the district for the next two years, after which this seat will go back on the ballot in 2014 for a full four year term.

In a recent commercial Hart is seen playing up her farming background, bi-partisanship (“good ideas come from both sides of the isle”), and auditing the state budget every year.  Meanwhile Naeve has been placing his focus on creating jobs through business expansion, tax relief for all Iowans, and improving education.

The money situation here is very telling.  Naeve has clearly proven beyond formidable by raising just under $94,000 on his own, and having the GOP kick in another $20,000.  As for Hart, she struggled to compete in this area and brought in only $48,000.  Fortunately for her however the Democrat Party stepped up big on her behalf.  Likely realizing that Naeve was a great campaigner with a real shot to make up the 2,891 registration advantage she had, the Senate Majority Fund intervened heavily by tossing in a whopping $187,000.

All things being equal, especially with the 2:1 money advantage, the Democrats probably like their chances here.  That being said, Naeve has proven he can move the needle by taking on a popular Democrat two years ago and falling just short–and mind you he was only 25 at the time.

It says a lot that the Democrat Party felt they had to spend nearly $200,000 in a race where they have a relatively sizable registration advantage.  My sense is that this one is going to be close on election night.

Further Info

Andrew Naeve —  NaeveForIowaSenate.com

Rita Hart –  RitaHart.org

Waechter’s Final Pre-Election Weigh In: No Matter How You Vote, the Economy Will Not Improve

Waechter’s Final Pre-Election Weigh In: No Matter How You Vote, the Economy Will Not Improve

I cast my ballot early. I didn’t vote third-party and therefore my vote isn’t being wasted. It also isn’t going to matter.

Since 1990, the United States has run aggregate trade deficits above $8 trillion. This is funny, because in 1990 the M2 metric of currency supply was only $3 trillion. There should be nothing but dust coming out of the ATM machines. We have purchased entire merchant-fleets full of foreign goods, and paid for it by quite literally printing money.

Foreign countries, being more blatant about their currency devaluation policies, have been willing to go along with this arrangement. The result is this dynamic: The US prints dollars to buy goods from China, and the Chinese central bank prints yuan to buy the dollars. We get cheap Chinese stuff, the Chinese central bank gets huge dollar reserves, and the Chinese people get jobs and lots of inflation.

As the years went by, this dynamic absolutely shattered the productive impetus in the American economy. There is no reason to manufacture anything, or engage in productive activity in general. There is also no reason to hire people to help you be productive.

You can see this dynamic in your own communities, with factories that are closed, the kids that can’t find jobs, and farmers – busy producing inflation-sensitive commodities on land, which can’t be outsourced – buying new trucks with cash. The illness in our economy is bad monetary policy.

In a normal economy, if there is demand for consumer goods, entrepreneurs have to take land, labor, and capital and combine them in a way that produces goods efficiently, and at a price the general public can afford to pay. The American economy has another option – we can simply print money and spend it on imports, which is much simpler, requires no investment of capital or any hiring, and is much cheaper.

The result was the largest consumption binge in history, and an economy dependent on investment bubbles – tech stocks, housing, government bonds. The Federal Reserve poured new money into the financial system. You could get a home equity loan to cover your credit card debt, rung up at retail outlets selling almost exclusively imported goods.

Since manufacturing was on the way out, the service sector was the place to be, and the best service sector jobs require college degrees, so the answer is to go to college. Both parties agreed; the answer wasn’t to address the problems with our monetary system, but to attend college. Every young person was told that college is critical.

Now, we have more people in their 20’s living with their parents, more college graduates than ever are working part time, if they can find jobs at all, and the only policy solutions coming out of our elected officials is to double down on college, fund green energy schemes ( I‘m talking about you, Chuck Grassley) and economic development kitsch projects at all levels, building economic Potemkin Villages designed to try and keep the consumption binge going.

Close down Maytag? No problem! Build a race track! Remember when Nancy Pelosi said that unemployment checks would stimulate the economy? People need to spend, spend, spend, because there is no work, work, work.

Without the inflationary monetary policy coming out of the Federal Reserve, the government could not run the enormous deficits, the trade deficit couldn’t have gotten this large (currency would have become scarce, and productivity more valuable), and the government would have to be honest about the absurd arithmetic surrounding our entitlement programs.

Therefore, neither party will countenance a serious challenge to our current monetary system. Even Paul Ryan’s budget plan – so maligned by the left – doesn’t eliminate the deficit nor tackles entitlements. Sound money might even threaten the defense budget, and is therefore terrorism.

So, Barack Obama champions stimulus programs to re-inflate consumption and crows about tariffs on Chinese tires; Mitt Romney labels China a currency manipulator for being willing to bite the inflation bullet themselves and hold our currency as a reserve.

Work in a factory keeps their people busy and gives them the illusion of progress – a bit like how college keeps young people in America busy and gives their parents the illusion that their children will “amount to something.“ Concerns that college diplomas are worthless and that the wages of the Chinese factory worker are shredded by inflation are secondary.

Offshoring is not the machination of evil capitalists; it is a phenomenon of monetary policy, plain and simple. Other countries are willing to hold our currency as a reserve, so we can buy imports with inflation. According to the Examiner, Jeep is next on deck to offshore.

So, services and technological expertise is the key to success in America, as long as another large, developing economy doesn’t devalue their currency and start holding dollars as a reserve.

Especially not one with a large, English-speaking population, and definitely not one with a past influenced by British rule. Why, if that happened, we could just print money and buy our services from that country, and you would run the risk of not fully understanding the technician’s accent the next time you have to call tech support, which is simply unimaginable.

I cast my vote. I ended up voting for the one that I figure is less likely to throw me into a gulag. I suppose this makes my vote “idealistic.”

Here we are. We have an economy that cannot produce wealth, based on consumption, with a government that we cannot finance and cannot change. We are consistently running trade deficits in excess of $40 billion per month but are told that we lack demand for stuff, almost 50 million people are dependent on food stamps, and an entire generation is shacked up at home, paying their student loans and otherwise too poor to participate in the consumption economy. Yet, there is no stomach for change.

When debating Walter Mondale in 1984, Ronald Reagan cited Cicero and remarked, “If not for the elders, correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no State.”

What are the young supposed to do when their elders who run the government have lost their minds?

The post Waechter’s Final Pre-Election Weigh In: No Matter How You Vote, the Economy Will Not Improve appeared first on The Conservative Reader.

The Des Moines Register’s Endorsement of Romney: Why Republican Skepticism Is Largely Unfair

The Des Moines Register’s Endorsement of Romney: Why Republican Skepticism Is Largely Unfair

For those who haven’t paid attention to The Des Moines Register’s recent editorial board history, there is no question their endorsement of Mitt Romney is a big story.  This history includes a 40 year gap in backing a Republican for President, spanning all the cycles between Richard Nixon’s second run and Mitt Romney’s second bid for the oval office.

Over the next week much of what you hear from both the left and the right will be various forms of skepticism, questioned motives, and outright dismals—including claims this was payback for Obama disrespecting them last week.  Our readers clearly know we generally don’t have much love for The Register, and specifically we exposed the ridiculous intellectual dishonesty of their 2008 presidential endorsements.

Not only will this reversal-of-course make national headlines in the coming days, it will alienate their shrunken consumer base of hard-line Democrats.  This prompts the questions: Is it possible they have turned over a new leaf, or was this retribution and/or just a disingenuous ploy for attention?  Surprisingly, my sense is it’s likely the former and not the latter.

What To Make Of This?

Having noted their highly partisan past, I believe all the suspicion and skepticism surrounding this endorsement is largely unfair.  The Register deserves the benefit of the doubt for two reasons.

First, Republicans have yearned for a state paper that played things close to down the middle for years.  To finally see evidence this institution may be heading this direction and react by simply dismissing it out of hand is biased in and of itself.

Many will say this one action cannot undo years of daily left-slanted journalism, and they are correct, but realize as well that this endorsement is no small thing.  If Romney was up 7-10 points here in Iowa you could make the case they simply were backing a sure winner—the reality is that this is a very tight race and The Register’s abandoning of Obama could actually have a small impact, especially on those somehow still wavering voters.

The other reason Republicans shouldn’t cheapen this nod to Romney lay in the actual substance of the endorsement itself.

Before reading it I was expecting heavy equivocation ( ‘though we like Romney on X, we fear he doesn’t understand and will be damaging to Y and Z’ )—this however was largely not the case.

Though sure to say America needs to be even more hospitable to illegal aliens and that losing “progress” on gay and transgendered issues is unacceptable—the remaining balance of the endorsement did not spare Obama on his poor record and laid out a strong case for why Romney would succeed in fixing turning around the economy,

My View

The text reveals this was an “endorsement-endorsement” and not just lip service.  Nobody has been harder on The Des Moines Register in recent years than The Conservative Reader, but judgment must be cast on words and deeds not prior reputation.  In this case The Des Moines Register was willing to put the two candidates on a scale and report how they saw the resulting measurement.

Going forward, if and when The Register is willing to give Republicans a fair shake—than Republicans should be willing to return the favor.

 

Iowa Votes 2012: Preview of Coverage

Iowa Votes 2012: Preview of Coverage

Over the past several weeks we have taken an in-depth look at each of the 8 Iowa Senate races TCR: Iowa has deemed as leaning either Republican or Democrat.  From now untill election day we are moving on to take a closer look at the 5 Senate races we feel will determine control of the Iowa Senate–and hence control of the Iowa Legislature for the next two years.  These races crucial for control are SD 49, SD 48, SD 36, SD 30, and SD 26.

In addition to looking at these 5 races, on November 4th we will look at the districts where Republicans blew major oppurtunities and therefore are not competetive, and on November 5th we will provide a guide for what to watch for on election night.

Here is a compilation of links to the 8 Senate Leaners we have covered:

Senate District 14 – Amy Sinclair (R)  vs.  Dick Schrad (D)

Senate District 22 – Pat Ward (R)  vs.  Desmund Adams (D)

Senate District 8 – Mike Gronstal (D)  vs.  Al Ringenneberg (R)

Seante District 42 – Rich Taylor (D)  vs.  Larry Kruse (R)

Senate District 38 – Tim Kapucian (R)  vs.  Shelley Parbs (D)

Senate District 24 – Jerry Behn (R)  vs.  Shelly Stotts (D)

Senate District 44 -  Tom Courtney (D)  vs.  Bradley Bourn (R)

Senate District 46 -  Shawn Hamerlinck (R)  vs.  Chris Brase (D)

Iowa Senate Races: A Closer look At The Last Leaner (SD46)

Iowa Senate Races: A Closer look At The Last Leaner (SD46)

(( Click for TCR: Iowa’s complete overview of the Iowa Senate races ))

The Candidates

Shawn Hamerlinck (R)  vs.  Chris Brase (D)

Shawn Hamerlinck is the incumbent here.  He is a faculty member of the Eastern Iowa Community College District and is seeking his second term after first being elected to the Iowa Senate in 2008.  Chris Brase is a longtime Muscatine firefighter running for office for the first time.

The District

Senate District 46 is on the Eastern border of Iowa, essentially curling around the north and east sides of the city of Davenport.  By registered voter numbers this is the true definition of a swing district—(R-11,644) (D-11,197) (NP-15,741) (R+447).  Having said that, the fact that both the House seats in this district (91 and 92) are held by Republicans, and the incumbent Senator is also a Republican, suggests the GOP has a stronger history of getting out the vote in this area.  The two counties in play are Muscatine and the Southwestern territory of Scott County.

The Race

Surprising most Iowa political watchers, Hamerlinck faced a primary challenge from fellow incumbent and friend Jim Hahn.  Though he won handily on primary day he was forced to spend a good deal of money along the way—and as such was way down in cash on hand to Brase as of the last filing period.  With Brase having nearly $30,000 in the bank, it remains to be seen if Republicans will double-donate to Hamerlinck—if they don’t I fully expect the Party to step in with resources.  The GOP certainly doesn’t want to spend in defense of a popular incumbent, however, the thought of losing an up and coming future star in the Party will be a much less appealing reality.

Despite being only his first term, Hamerlinck has been very active in writing, sponsoring, and co-sponsoring legislation.  The areas in which he focused his legislative contributions were in cutting regulations (SF 2116 & SR 7), protecting the 2nd Amendment (SF’s 162, 263, 264, and 372), and creating an online database for citizens to track government spending (SF 139).

Chris Brase is running hard on being able to be bi-partisan, saying he will, “work with anyone who has a good idea—Republican or Democrat—and stand up to partisan politics on behalf of Iowa’s families.”  He says he is in favor of cutting taxes on middle class families and helping local businesses—partially by pushing for more low-interest loans for such enterprises.

As mentioned above his $30,000 on hand for this race proves he is able to raise the funds necessary to unseat an incumbent Senator.  Beyond providing invaluable advertising, fundraising numbers in non-statewide elections are an important barometer for lesser known candidates because it points to their overall persuasive abilities.  This not only translates to cash in the bank but suggests the candidate will do very well on the doorstep of undecided voters.

Though I have this seat leaning Republican there are several factors that make this a possible pick-up for Democrats.  On top of the fact Brase has no large registered voter advantage to overcome, has plenty of money, and that local Democrats are likely hungry to finally have representation in this area—Senate 46 falls inside Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District.  This is the match-up between Dave Loebsack (D) and John Archer (R), and as of now Archer is not running as strong as the other Republican Congressional hopefuls.

If on election night Loebsack is able to defeat Archer, and do it by close to double-digits, Hamerlinck is in jeopardy of being taken out as well.  Though being defeated is certainly possible, I still see Shawn Hamerlinck returning to the Iowa Senate in 2013.

Further Information

Shawn Hamerlinck – ShawnHamerlinck.com

Chris Brase -  ChrisBraseForIowaSenate.com

    Log in