by | Oct 25, 2011
This is the second installment of a two-part interview, to read part one click here.
Education
Governor Branstad’s legacy-minded education reform proposal has struggled to draw support since its release on October 3rd, and you can count Mr. Landon as one of those lacking in enthusiasm.
A core tenet of Landon’s philosophy is local control. The benefit he sees in applying this principle to education is that the parents of each child, and the teachers in the actual class room, will have their voices better heard and their concerns more directly dealt with,
“My first reaction (to the governor’s plan) is that it drives us towards more state control and more mandates on levels of performance. I think that we are going to have to reform the system, but I think that instead of less local control we need to focus on more local control. I think we need to make sure that the families, the school teachers, and the administrators all have their say on how this should be done. I really believe that parents and school teachers, the people who are in that sector, know the best for their kidsâ€.
Health Care
The Democrats failure last session to construct Iowa’s insurance exchange program in accordance with Obama Care means that a nasty, brutal fight awaits next year. By all accounts this will be one of the three most high-profile issues debated by the Iowa Legislature in 2012, and one that ultimately drew fellow candidate Stacey Rogers (R-Ankeny) into the race. Landon, for one, would have voted no last year on SF 404 and sounds ready to engage in the fight,
“What would guide me is local control. The rights of District 37 residents and the rights of Iowans have to come first. Anything that’s done has to be for their benefit and their economic interests. And frankly, I view Obama Care as unconstitutional from the get-go. I am not in favor of taking care of this through the government because they (the people) will not be taken care of the way they should be.â€
On Illegal Immigration
“I am a proponent of legal immigration. It is probably not that big of an issue in this particular district, but there are areas in Iowa where it is. As a state issue I would say that the Federal government, like in so many other things, has failed. I am against the taxpayer having to pay for the upkeep of people who have come here illegally.â€
Barring an unexpected Federal resolution to this problem Landon indicated a willingness to possibly engage at the state level, “If the Federal government won’t do it and they are going to continue to let the border be porous, from the standpoint of public safety and who is going to protect the taxpayer, there has to be a process that protects you the citizen.â€
On Varnum (Gay Marriage)
“That should have been decided by the voters. That is a monumental shift in society and voters need to have their say. If a constitutional amendment is the only way for voters to get their voice heard on it, then we need to do it.â€
On The Tea Party
In response to a question seeking his thoughts on the Tea Party and if he would consider himself a “Tea Party-ish†candidate, he answered, “I haven’t found anything in their platform that offends me or that I take issue with. I am for individual rights. I think people can make their own decisions and government would be well advised to pay attention to that. Having said that, I am part of the process and a consensus builder, I just don’t think you can go out there as a maverick and get a whole lot done. What I want is for Lincoln and Douglas townships to flourish and for Ankeny to flourish. The only way I can do that is by being an effective voice, and the only way to be an effective voice is to be a part of the process.â€
Race Analysis and Summary
The contest for the Republican nomination in House District 37 will be of elevated importance as the probability is high that the nominee will ultimately be the Representative. Due to the fact that the district has a 2,400 advantage in registered Republicans over registered Democrats in what is already shaping up to be a Republican wave year, it is likely that the nominee may run un-opposed. Even more likely is that if the Democrats do choose to field a candidate they will not bother to recruit a top-notch challenger or commit substantial resources to the effort.
In what could end up being a crowded field of Republicans, John Landon is a serious contender who will be in it for the long haul. He appears both fired up for the race and ready to put in the time and work that will be required to win the seat. The major pillars that his candidacy will be built on are: less intrusive government, more local control, simplicity in legislative solutions, sensitivity to Iowa’s taxpayers, and a vehement opposition to unfunded mandates.
In particular, emphasizing that the failure to make budget cuts leads to higher taxes and a crusade against unfunded mandates could garner wide-spread appeal in District 37.
As his background suggests he is clearly positioned in the race as the “business candidate.†While often times the “business candidate†moniker is attached to folks who have had professional success, it’s worth noting that the business-like way Mr. Landon breaks down large issues as he thinks through them suggests that he would translate these skills to governance should he be elected.
Though we are early in the process, as Republicans begin to look at the field they will find much to like about John Landon as a person and as a candidate.
by | Oct 24, 2011
This is part one of a two part piece. A link to the second installment covering the topics of education, health care, illegal immigration, gay marriage, the tea party and an early analysis of this race can be found at the end of this article or by clicking on Part 2 here.
The population explosion the city of Ankeny has seen over the last ten years has brought many changes to this Des Moines suburb. Along with construction of a new high school and the surge of large retailers that accompany a population growth from 27,000 to 45,000 in one decade, Ankeny has also received a make-over in its state legislative districts.
In terms of the Iowa House, what resulted is for the first time Ankeny has been split into two House districts. Replacing old HD 70 are new political territories HD 37 and HD 38 (click for maps). While former HD 70 Representative Kevin Koester (R-Ankeny) is running in HD 38, the city’s other new district, composed of north Ankeny extending to Alleman and east to the Bondurant city line, finds itself without representation.
Recently I sat down with one of the candidates vying to be this district’s inaugural public servant, Republican John Landon.
Any voter sizing up a candidate who will speak for them at any level of government needs to seek answers to three basic questions—who are they?, where do they stand?, and why do they stand there? The following should give you a good feel for all three.
The Candidate
Mr. Landon is a fourth generation Iowan who grew up working on a family farm in Marshall County. After serving two years in the Navy, which included a tour in Vietnam, he returned to Iowa and earned a degree in Ag Business from Iowa State University. Following school he embarked on a 28 year career working for two international grain companies. After retiring from that business in 2002, he became a partner in the Iowa based Peoples Company. He, his wife Marvis, and their two children moved to Ankeny in 1994 where he became active in both his church and the Boy Scouts.
His reasons for getting into politics, and ultimately deciding to make this run, are both numerous and specific, “I became increasingly dissatisfied with state government over the last 12 years.†The root of this dissatisfaction first emerged from the exposure his business career gave him to industry regulations, “Lots of people in the Legislature make all these rules and say ‘hey that’s great,’ but they don’t understand the impact that they’re having on people and business—it has gotten to be a heavy blanket over business.â€
While his business dealings with the government may have laid the foundation, it was a trip to the State Capital over an issue that flared up in 2009 that proved to be the final impetus,
“There became a discussion in the state about the deductibility of Federal income taxes on our state returns. There was a public hearing and we drove down to the Capital and went into the House chamber for that hearing. And I saw the Speaker of the House rule over it like a little dictator with an iron fist, and eventually he threw us all out and cleared the gallery. I realized at that point just how far state government had become removed from the average citizen, and that got me activated.â€
The Issues
The Budget
When asked if a $6 billion annual budget was appropriate for Iowa, Mr. Landon clearly indicated that he would come in shooting for a much lower number, “I am strongly in favor of people keeping as much as their money as possible . . . we need to break this down and see what we are getting back for the taxes that we pay—and I’m struggling to see what we get back.â€
Directly related to the spending cuts that would be necessary to shrink our yearly outlay, I specifically asked about the $42 million in “targeted reductions and savings†the governor will be asking the legislature to approve next year and the political peril this may entail. He responded, “It’s going to be used as a hot issue no matter what happens, because you are dealing with people who are receiving public aid for their health care.â€
Though no specified cuts have been proposed, he would stand with the governor on this issue in theory, “We are talking about trying to find 2%-3% spent in inefficiencies,†a percentage he felt could in part be found using the Six Sigma method.
While noting the complexities involved, he is quick to draw a direct line from the failure to make budget reductions to the eventual higher taxes that they lead to,
“I want Iowans to have the best care possible but I also have a heart for the people who are paying taxes, I understand how complicated that balance gets. This is about the will of the people. This is the time where people have to stand up and say either I am satisfied to give up half my income or not. If that’s what they choose then fine, but I am here to tell you that it’s not fine, and it’s not working. There is no way that people can feel good about the current tax structure and what is going on. We cannot succeed by taxing ourselves to prosperity.â€
Taxes
One of the major issues to go unresolved last session was tax reform, and center stage in that debate was how to go about lowering commercial property taxes in Iowa. Should this issue come before a Representative Landon he would be inclined to support the largest reduction plan on the table. Interestingly, in addition to standing for cutting taxes he has some proposed solutions to address the root cause of our ever-growing tax burden, “When these school boards and community boards are faced with mandates for a rule the state is making and they are not sent any money to do it, it is going to end up in your tax receipt just as plain as day. And I think unfunded mandates ought to be absolutely unconstitutional and illegal in the state of Iowa.â€
When asked if this is something he would propose in legislative form on his arrival to the chamber, he replied, “That is a bill that needs to be brought forward and something there needs to be a good public discussion about.â€
Note: To read the rest of the story click here for Part 2
by | Oct 6, 2011
Thursday morning John Landon put fellow Republicans and House District 37 residents on notice that he plans to run for the newly created seat in the Iowa legislature.
Stay tuned in the coming weeks as The Conservative Reader:Iowa will follow this developing primary and have a sit down interview with Mr. Landon as he embarks on this campaign.
The following is the press release sent out by the Landon camp:
For immediate release
October 5, 2011
ANKENY, Iowa — Pledging to be an aggressive leader for a balanced state budget, economic development, education reform, and agriculture, Ankeny resident John Landon today announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for Iowa’s State House District 37.
A lifelong Iowan with a background in business, Landon (525 NE Stone Valley Drive, Ankeny, IA) is a pro-life, pro-family conservative committed to balancing the state budget; creating jobs in a favorable climate for business and agricultural growth; eliminating costly regulations; and making education more cost effective. “I will be an aggressive leader for Ankeny and surrounding townships in the state legislature,†said Landon. “Jobs are vital, and residents of this district want a leader who shares their vision of Ankeny job base and agricultural growth without raising taxes.â€
Landon is partner at Peoples Company where he is a farm manager and agricultural land Realtor.  Landon is a Viet Nam veteran who served in the Navy Seabees prior to graduating from Iowa State University. He is an active leader at Cornerstone Baptist Church and served many years as a Boy Scout leader with Troop 188. He has also been a leader in the Polk County Republicans in recent years. Landon, and his wife Marvis, have two children, Eric (married to Rebecca) and Morgan who both graduated from Ankeny High School, having attended Ankeny schools K-12.
Iowa House District 37 is a newly created district that includes the north side of Ankeny (Ankeny Precincts 1-7, 9-10), along with Lincoln and Douglas townships. The primary for Iowa House District 37 will be held in June and election in November 2012.
![Observations on the August 11th Iowa GOP/Fox News Presidential Debate]()
by John Bloom | Aug 15, 2011
Courtesy of State Central Committee member Gopal Krishna, my wife and I had great 8th row seats for the Iowa GOP/Fox News Presidential Debate.
The debate included: Speaker Gingrich; Governors: Huntsman, Pawlenty and Romney; Senator Santorum, Representatives Bachmann and Paul; and businessman Herman Cain.
I’m writing this post on Sunday morning, August 14th. I intended to write it before the Straw Poll, but I didn’t get it done. My observations will include some thoughts about the Straw Poll, although I was not able to attend it in person. I don’t believe in titling people as “winners†or “losers†so I will define my analysis in terms of my personal expectations.
Exceeded Expectations:Â
Governor Romney – Mitt Romney spoke powerfully and articulately on every opportunity. I was particularly impressed with his handling of the “gotcha†question about the Bain Capital investments in businesses that later failed and lost jobs. His answers on Romneycare are consistent with what can be expected of a Republican governor in a liberal state. I believe the 10th Amendment has meaning, so I respect his answer.  He did not compete in the Straw Poll.
Senator Santorum – Rick Santorum sprinted from anonymity to relevance with his precise, powerful responses on his legislative achievements related to welfare reform and middle east foreign policy. For me, his clash with Ron Paul made me consider again the Congressman’s views on foreign policy. His debate performance helped him to 4th place in the Straw Poll.
Met Expectations:
Speaker Gingrich – Newt Gingrich had a great start when he criticized Chris Wallace for asking “gotcha†questions. The crowd was 100% with him. Unfortunately, he finished weakly with an oddly placed plea for citizens to contact their representatives now because we can’t wait until 2012’s election for leadership.
Representative Bachmann – Michele Bachmann had an overall good night. I thought she had the most difficult of the “gotcha†questions when she was asked if she would be submissive to her husband as President. She showed great control over her emotions. She came across as thoughtful and confident in her responses. I thought she relied too much on lines from her scripted stump speech. She is the Iowa leader coming into the debate and I thought she held her own, as confirmed by her 1st place showing in the Straw Poll.
Failed to Meet Expectations:
Representative Paul – Ron Paul should be in my wheelhouse. I have strong Libertarian leanings in my political ideology. I thought he made a mistake engaging in the cat fight with Senator Santorum. He came across as a little shrill in his efforts to defend Iran and criticize past U.S. foreign policy.  I imagine President Obama was nodding in agreement. Most of all, I don’t understand why he does not ask his ardent supporters to show respect and refrain from aggravating the many people who attended the debate to hear candidates, not activists. Of course, he nearly won the Staw Poll, but I’m skeptical that his national polling numbers will improve based on the debate.
Herman Cain – Herman Cain should also be in my wheelhouse. I believe strongly in capitalism as the engine of prosperity for America and the world. Herman’s strength is his ability to provide short understandable answers to complex questions. He has not moved quickly enough from process to solutions. I thought he performed at about the same level as the South Carolina debate, but that is not good enough at this point.
Governor Pawlenty – Tim Pawlenty looked petty in the way he engaged Representative Bachmann. I realize that some of this was driven by the questions, but he would have been well served to remember Reagan’s 11th Commandment.  Given the time and effort he has put into his Iowa effort, his % of the vote in the Straw Poll confirms that he did not meet expectations in this debate. He had the organization, but he did not have the committed voters like Bachmann and Paul.  I understand now why McCain did not pick him as his VP in 2008.
Editorial Note: My comments were finished before Governor Pawlenty dropped out.
Governor Huntsman – Jon Huntsman is a Republican. I don’t understand why Dick Morris keeps saying he should run in the Democrat Party.  I appreciate his willingness to stick with positions that he knows are unpopular with a meaningful segment of the Republican base. That takes character and integrity. I think he has those qualities. I thought his demeanor lacked sparkle and emotion. His responses were not crisp. He has not spent much time in Iowa so the Staw Poll doesn’t mean much for his candidacy.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that I would be willing to work hard and support any of these candidates, Rick Perry or Sarah Palin should they win the Republican nomination for President. Each of them would be a far better President than Barack Obama, who has turned out to be the most partisan, divisive President of my lifetime.
by | Aug 9, 2011
In part one of this interview, the last legislative session was the main focus. Now we will turn our attention to the major issues that will be hotly debated in 2012.
One of the first things to jump out at anyone who starts digging into the issues being wrestled with by our general assembly is how much they mirror the issues being debated at the Federal level. This being the case, there is no better place to start than how Obamacare and trimming entitlements manifest themselves here In Iowa.
Obamacare and the Politics of Medicaid
While scarcely publicized, last session included preliminary debates into setting up Iowa’s insurance exchange, which Obamacare mandates be done by next year’s legislative adjournment. The tricky situation for state legislators opposed to the concept, including Sen. Whitver, is that failure to have this exchange in place would result in the Federal government taking over the task—an even more unappealing outcome.
The push to set up this exchange was resisted by a contingent of Republican Senators, and the debate as to how it will be constructed, if it even proves necessary, was moved to next session:
“Several of us, including me, weren’t ready to sign off on this and say Obamacare is legitimate. It’s still going through the court process, so setting up all the framework and infrastructure would have been legitimizing it when the fate of the legislation hasn’t even been determined.â€
Directly tying into the Constitutional challenge of Obamacare, last session Senate Republicans went on record broadly opposing mandated health care coverage in the form of SF 94. Though destined not to advance due to the lack of a majority, it is a short read (one page) and is worth becoming aware of as it leaves their philosophical position completely unclouded by confusion.
A close examination into Governor Branstad’s budget proposal for last year reveals that in fiscal year 2012 he will be seeking $42 million of “targeted savings and reductions†in Medicaid. This is a reaction to the realities of the end of the Stimulus Bill funding, future Iowa L.S.A (Legislative Services Agency) projections, and the out of control nature of Medicaid’s beneficiary eligibility table.
A look back at fiscal years 2009-2011 shows that the Federal government, through the Stimulus Bill, paid an increased share of Iowa’s Medicaid bills that totaled $114 million in 2009, $223.6 million in 2010, and $188.1 million in 2011. The problem faced by the Governor, and the reason Republicans insisted on ending last year with a surplus, is that in 2012 these additional payments cease to exist.
Making matters worse is that the L.S.A. projects, largely due to the ongoing recession, that Iowa’s share of our Medicaid bill will rise from $846.8 million in 2011, to a staggering $1.15 billion in 2012 (an increase of $303.8 million in one year). Keep in mind that when we hear the term “out of control entitlements†thrown around, this is what they are talking about. Next year alone, just the share of Iowa’s Medicaid bill that the Federal government doesn’t pay will be more than one-sixth of our entire state budget.
After researching the table for who qualifies for Medicaid, it doesn’t take long to see why this program’s costs are so astronomically high. Here are just a few of the many examples: a pregnant woman currently qualifies for Medicaid benefits at 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. This means that in 2011 a single, pregnant women making $44,000 a year qualifies for Medicaid, as does her child until the age of one. Along these same lines, a married couple expecting their first child and making $55,000 a year also finds the mother, and again her baby until the age of one, eligible for Medicaid.
In spite of these outrageous figures, Republicans are fully expecting to face relentless political attacks from Democrats as they attempt to trim a very small amount (the $42 million) off of our expenditure sheet.
“It will be seized on anytime you look at entitlement programs. I think that we just have to trust that our voters will understand it’s not sustainable in the long term, and that we are trying to make small fixes now to prevent major slashes later.â€
Illegal Immigration
Obvious to any Iowan even slightly aware of their surroundings, our state has been even further deluged with illegal immigrants in the past decade. If one failed to see this first hand, the Des Moines Register has relentlessly printed front page stories about how lucky we are to have them and how they have re-vitalized many a small Iowa town. To those of us who still respect the rule of law and the notion of American citizens working American jobs, this reality represents something far different.
Asked in very general terms if states have any responsibility in dealing with this problem Sen. Whitver responded, “The Federal government should be doing it, but obviously they are not,†leading him to the belief that “there are definitely things that the state [Iowa] can, and should, do as far as curbing illegal immigration.â€
When asked about the validity of the ever present argument that “illegal immigrants are just doing jobs that Americans won’t do,†he replied, “I don’t buy into the whole ‘there’s jobs that Americans won’t do’ because I come from the school that says ‘I will work any job and do whatever it takes to support my family.’â€
Very much reflective of the National scene, after boiling over in mid-2008, this issue has found the back burner. Of the thousands of e-mails and town forum interactions he has had with constituents, there was little outcry regarding this topic.
Highlighting the need for a majority to drive the agenda, it is clear that without a few more Senate seats the issue will not get dealt with and the problem will grow worse. The only bright spot for those concerned is that when asked if Republicans had a majority in the Senate would this issue at least be on the radar screen, Sen. Whitver responded, “Yes, I think so.â€
Education
All the Senator’s answers to my questions on the problems in our public education system serve to completely de-bunk the liberal notion that Republicans are somehow against teachers and paying them well. The real issue is whether teachers are going to be quantitatively judged on their performance and prove their merit matches their pay grade—quite a novel concept.
“The biggest thing I want to be able to do is reward quality teachers. I would like it to be that if young people get in and are excelling as teachers, they can move up to the top of their field and get rewarded for it.â€
The real challenge is how to implement a fair system of measuring the skill of teachers and the impact they have on the students they are presented with each year. Additionally, solving the problem involves confronting other impediments that affect student achievement, such as parent involvement and a proliferation of non-English speaking students (see illegal immigration above). In hopes of arming himself with potential answers to these tough questions, he attended the Governor’s recent Iowa Education Summit, and looks forward to attempting to reverse Iowa’s slide in National education rankings.
In spite of the fact that Federal spending on education has doubled over the last forty years while scores have remained the same, and even though Iowa spends nearly $10,000 per pupil every year, last year the predictable Democrat cries for yet more funding ensued. Republicans took much heat while fighting for 0% growth in the education budget, ultimately compromising by getting the 0% this year and returning back to the traditional 2% increase next year.
“0% allowable growth is actually about $220 million more than the Democrat controlled legislature and Governor gave them last year—not promised them but gave them. So they can make all the promises they want, but the fact is we actually gave them more money last year, even with 0% allowable growth, because we fully funded it.â€
Though the solutions are complex and infested by political interests, he seemed optimistic and enthusiastic about attacking the problems in next year’s session, “The bottom line is, if you are not seeing results for what you are putting into it, then something has to change. There are solutions for everything and we can get it fixed. But simply throwing more and more money at it every year is not getting it done.â€
In 2012—No More Next Time
After a historically long and grueling session in 2011, much of the same seemingly awaits law makers next year. Our deeply divided legislative bodies failed to resolve several high profile issues—a luxury the 2012 session will not afford them. In Sen. Whitver’s case, this is exactly what he signed up for:
“I wanted to run because we need people who will make the tough choices.â€
From property tax relief, to looking for savings in Medicaid, to education reform—the future holds no lack of just such choices.
