by | Jun 18, 2012
Preparing for the Supreme Court Fallout
With the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act expected within the next two weeks, both sides of the isle are busy making contingency plans. Two things of specific note here are:
- This decision will directly affect the next session of the Iowa Legislature. As of this moment the General Assembly has delayed setting up the insurance exchanges that are required in the health care law. If the law is upheld there will be mounting pressure on Iowa Republicans to begin this process quickly, and they will be forced to decide to either design the exchanges in order to have a say in how they are built, or take no action and risk having Iowa being governed by the exchange that the Federal government constructs.
- The decision’s details will have a great impact on our health care system as it pertains to the expansion of Medicaid. The working theory is that, as long as the whole law is not thrown out, the expansion of Medicaid that would put at least 16 million new people on the Medicaid roles would remain in effect. In this scenario action by Congress would be required to reverse this new reality. This highlights the importance of Republicans winning both the Senate and the Oval Office in November, regardless of the Supreme Court ruling.
    New York Times: With Justices Set to Rule on Health Law, Two Parties Strategize
An Early Analysis of Iowa in November
Take a look at the infrastructure the Obama and Romney campaigns are building in Iowa, and some of the factors at play in a crucial swing state.
Among some of the interesting things dealt with here are how having Steve King and the judicial retention elections on the November ballot will affect the Presidential race.
Slate: The Psychological State of IowaÂ
A Disturbing Sign of the Times
One wonders how long our Country can prosper while producing citizens capable of the following behavior–and having a social safety net that makes it possible.
Unbelievable and Despicable:Â News Channel 3 (Memphis): Memphis Man Owes Child Support to 15 Women
Even More Unbelievable and Despicable:Â News Channel 3 (Memphis):Â Tenn. Man “Fathers” 30 Kids But Can’t Support AnyÂ
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.
![A Sweeping Declaration of Intent: Gingrich unveils new “21st Century Contract with Americaâ€]()
by | Sep 30, 2011
If ever there is going to be a moment for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to create momentum and change the flat trajectory of his presidential run—now is the time. One day after the release of a Fox News poll, which surprisingly showed him gaining substantial ground in the race, Gingrich took to the stage at the Principal building in Des Moines to unveil his newly minted “21st Century Contract with Americaâ€.
Updated from the 1994 version, this new contract will serve as the backbone of his campaign and its acceptance or rejection will determine his fate one way or the other.
In the world of presidential politics such fate is largely decided by three things—the style, the substance, and the politics. Here is a brief analysis of all three.
The Style
By any objective measure this event was a success for the former speaker. It displayed a candidate and a campaign that, at a minimum, is hitting its stride and indeed may be ready to become a major player in the race going forward.
Standing on a small stage at the bottom of a room that can be best described as a large movie theatre, Newt showcased many of the positive characteristics that have marked his long political career. He spoke for an hour without a teleprompter or notes and smoothly communicated his message to the audience while appearing very comfortable in his own skin.
The setting was remarkably similar to a college lecture hall and his experience as a professor no doubt factored into his comfort level. Much like his strong debate performances of late, this setting played to his strengths and the result was a candidate able to speak to a variety of issues in a succinct, relaxed, and presidential fashion.
The Substance
After being presented the outline for his new “contractâ€, one thing is certainly clear—this is a campaign that will not lack grandeur.
Quickly letting the audience know how high he thinks the stakes are, he explained the reasoning behind the large scale of his vision by saying “countries can die without adequate leadershipâ€.
By and large the 21st Century Contract with America is a sweeping document of declared intent. In most cases the solutions he outlines are intentionally vague as his plan is to slowly codify specifics as the campaign progresses. Following a “national conversionâ€, the aim is to have the contract fully fleshed out by September 27th of next year.
His solutions are largely modern day Conservative Republican fare (not a bad thing), whose main thrusts are to inject simplicity and choice into the dealings that we as citizens have with government. Any American serious about vetting the Republican candidates needs to read through the document on their own (availiable here), but here is an overview on a few major issues.
His first order of business would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a free market set of solutions to bring the cost of insurance down. The overall structure of our health care system would basically remain in place while insurance policies would be made portable, able to be purchased across state lines, and able to be optionally blended with personal health savings accounts (even in Medicare and Medicaid). These things along with tort reform and digitalizing medical records would attempt to radically decrease premiums without the use of mandates.
He would work to strengthen Social Security while keeping it at the Federal level and push for a voluntary option for young people to put a portion of their contributions into a Social Security savings account. The owner of this account could then choose to take this money and retire (or not retire) at any age they wished.
Perhaps the most interesting areas of this document come under the headings of taxes and immigration.
His business tax proposals are to reduce the corporate tax to 12.5%, abolish all capital gains and estate taxes, and allow 100% write offs in one year for all new equipment purchases. Personal income taxes would be handled by offering a choice to each citizen to either pay under the current system or file with a newly offered one page option. The one page would consist of taking your income, subtracting a standard deduction, taking a deduction for charitable giving and home ownership (if applicable), and multiplying that number by a single set percentage (which is left unspecified).
The headline on his immigration initiative is that there would be a deadline date for securing the border by January 1st, 2014 (“secure†is left undefined). Though it is not stated the inclusion of a firm date strongly suggests that following “securing†the border would be some form of amnesty. While a few years ago this idea would have been a non-starter for a large block of Republicans, currently the reality seems to have set in that this type of a trade-off is the only way to deal with this problem and finally move forward.
The Politics
Skeptics of the recent Gingrich campaign surge could doubt that he has the fiery sizzle to overcome his slow start and existing baggage— and be justified. Meanwhile critics of his 21st Century Contract with America could attack the plan for being a little light on specifics (especially since Newt is not prone to lack of minutia)—and attack they may. That being said, going forward this campaign has many more advantages to exploit than disadvantages to fear.
Here are six factors that point to his candidacy not only continuing to build on its current momentum, but that also have the potential to thrust him into the top three in a short amount of time.
#1) His mastery of the debate format, the reason that he has recently gained ground, will be an ever-growing advantage moving forward. As the number of candidates on stage dwindles he will be allotted more and more time and will be more easily compared to the less capable candidates.
#2) Republicans are likely to recognize that a supremely informed, smooth, and skilled debater will neutralize Obama’s biggest advantage (smooth flowery rhetoric).
#3) Now that he has a specific doctrine to anchor his campaign the focus will shift there and drift away from the personal issues that previously have been sucking up oxygen and damaging his campaign.
#4) A close examination of his policy proposals reveals that he has a large number of Tea Party friendly stances and would garner their support, while not being too linked to them to hurt him in a general election. In 2012 Republican politics this is what you call “the sweet spotâ€.
#5) The concepts of personal choice, competition, deadlines, fresh ideas, and lower taxes that are found throughout his platform will all appeal to true political independents—namely those that voted for Obama last time thinking that’s what they would be getting.
#6) As the race gets closer and more real, Republicans have a track record of deciding on the grounds of experience and perceived wherewithal to win…McCain anyone? Consider this— it’s easy to make the argument that he is as capable, if not more so, than Mitt Romney, while it’s hard to argue that he is not more Conservative.
The bottom line politically is that Newt stacks up well to the rest of the field in many categories while largely lapping them in depth and substance. As the race wears on he, oddly enough, finds himself with many advantages to gain from and plenty of time to do it…and he certainly doesn’t have to worry about peaking too soon!
In terms of the release of the new contract and the impact it will have on his campaign the analysis is fairly simple. The concept of a contract with the American people was a great idea and a brilliant political vehicle in 1994…and it still is in 2011.
Photo Courtesy of Prezography.com
![A Sweeping Declaration of Intent: Gingrich unveils new “21st Century Contract with Americaâ€]()
by | Aug 3, 2011
Three weeks removed from ending the third longest legislative session in Iowa history, I had the pleasure of sitting down for an interview with District 35’s representative in the Iowa Senate—Republican Jack Whitver. The main focus of our conversation was the results of the 172 day session and the political clouds already forming on the horizon for next year’s Senatorial get together.
In the interest of adding perspective, here is a brief overview of Senator Whitver’s political and business careers: He joined the Iowa Senate this year by virtue of winning a special election to fill the seat of Larry Noble, first beating five other Republicans in a truncated primary and then defeating Democrat John Calhoun (63%-36%). The district covers most of the northern half of Polk County including the Des Moines suburbs of Ankeny and Johnston, as well as Grimes, Polk City, Alleman, and Elkhart.
He is a former wide receiver for the Iowa State Cyclones and, in addition to being in the Senate, owns a three-location athletic training business called Acceleration Iowa, was the Offensive Coordinator for the Iowa Barnstormers last season, and is a law student at Drake University (no this is not a misprint… this is all in the same year).
 The Interview
At a glance it would be easy to say that the 2011 Iowa legislative session was a disappointment, as it saw high ranking agenda items from both political parties ultimately produce no legislation. As usual, however, the real story lies a few layers beneath the surface and, especially from a Conservative Republican viewpoint, is found by looking at and answering the question of why these things didn’t get done.
Taxes
Without a doubt, commercial and residential property tax relief was one of the few issues to truly burn white-hot during the session. All three legislative players had a plan on the table prescribing varying levels of aggressiveness in lowering Iowan’s taxes. The Governor’s plan was the most robust, followed by a more temperate approach from House Republicans, while the Senate Democrats’ plan was far tamer than the other two.
Reflecting just how high profile and high priority this issue was, Sen. Whitver regards his “no†vote as the most important one he cast in the session.
“I think the vote I am most proud of, and probably the toughest one I took, was on property taxes. That is something I campaigned on and something that needs to be done to help small businesses. The Senate Democrats brought forth a plan that I felt was not a good plan. It wasn’t nearly strong enough to do anything and was a long way away from what the House Republicans and the Governor were proposing. So it’s easy to sit down there and say ‘Well, it’s on property taxes so I am just going to vote yes and pass it.’ I was one of four Republicans that voted no, because I felt it wasn’t good enough, and I don’t want to put my name on a bill, even if it has the right title, if it wasn’t good enough. Because once you pass property tax reform, and it’s not a good bill, then it would be off the table next year, and the year after. So you don’t want to pass it for the sake of passing it.â€
Beyond it being too small, he also saw the Democrat plan as a vehicle to allow local towns and counties to avoid tightening their belts and reducing their property taxes. “It’s basically taking our State income tax and our State sales tax and giving it to businesses in the form of a tax credit—as opposed to actually lowering taxes. I wasn’t a big fan of that tax shift.â€
Sharing his philosophy of not settling on this issue, and certainly providing some welcome company, was Governor Branstad.
“To me the Governor showed a lot of confidence and leadership on this issue. Most governors, especially ones that don’t have the experience and the confidence he has would say, ‘Well, I said I wanted a property tax bill and I’ll take what I can get.’ Instead he said, ‘You know what, it’s not the one I want. We’ll come back and either do it in a special session or next year, but I’m not just going to try and save face and take whatever I can get.’ So I was happy about that.â€
Mental Health Reform
Another issue that remained unresolved by the session was reforming the state’s mental health care system, otherwise known as SF 525. To the casual observer this amounted to a mere failure—true in the sense that no reform got passed but, once again, a look at why this was the case unearths undeniable evidence that a strong Conservative presence is asserting itself at the State House.
More than any other issue, this bill split the Senate Republican caucus, with ten voting in favor, nine voting against, and five not voting at all. The eventual fate of the bill was that it was assigned to a committee for further study. When asked about this divide in the Party and the debate in general, Sen. Whitver laid out the issue like this:
“Part of it is a rural-urban divide. There is a lot of agreement that redesigning the mental health care system needs to be done. The difference is, do we want the state to take control of it, or can we let the counties keep control. Being from Polk County, we offer a lot of services that maybe Adams County does not, because they have 4,000 people. If they want to design a system where every county has to offer the same services they are not going to take every county down to Adams County levels, they are going to bring all other counties up to Polk County levels. And at the end of the day it just looks like something that’s going to greatly expand the cost and scope of government, and I think a lot of us weren’t comfortable with that.â€
The insight that this answer provides into the thought process of at least a sizeable chunk of Senate Republicans should bolster the resolve of Conservatives state-wide. It is hard to imagine a more positive indicator that Iowa Republicans are serious about actually achieving a smaller government—and not just talking about it.
Realize, especially on an emotionally sensitive topic like this one, what the specific logic they approached this issue with proves—they get it. They are viewing all things through a prism of justified skepticism, asking themselves, “Does this bill have the potential to explode into an over costly, ever expanding leviathan?†This type of foresight, had it been displayed by the Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson administrations, could have sparred us much of the pain we are currently feeling at the Federal level.
The Reality of the Minority
In short, the reality of the minority is that you are forced to judge success differently. A look at the 293 votes Sen. Whitver cast reveals a splintered wasteland of votes cast in vain. As the roll calls of losing 26-24, 24-23, 26-21 began to pile up during the session, one has to wonder if the Senator would rather have been back running 5 yard drag routes into 240-pound Big 12 linebackers…minus his pads.
Making matters worse for this particular minority was being under the thumb of Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs), who is renowned for both his liberalism and his penchant for using parliamentary maneuvers to avoid votes on hot-button issues. It didn’t take long for Sen. Whitver to experience this approach, “The first thing I saw when I got there was him changing the rules to not allow a majority of the Senators to bring up a bill.†When asked his thoughts on these tactics he joined the near unanimous chorus of Republican anger towards Gronstal, saying, “The ones that I really had a problem with were the ones that had the votes to pass. On same sex marriage, I think we had the votes to bring it up with a majority, and then to get it passed.â€
Despite these circumstances, Sen. Whitver deploys a perspective that allows him to take it all in stride:
“Yeah it’s frustrating in the short term, but I have taken a longer view about being in the Senate. It’s a four year term and if I was just looking at the next election I could say, ‘Ok, I’ll vote for that property tax bill,’ but I’m going to look at the big picture. A lot of those 26-24 votes draw a line in the sand and say, ‘This is what Democrats want and this is what Republicans want, and this is our agenda going forward.’ So yeah, it is frustrating to go in there every day and vote no and see something pass, but in the long term I think we are setting up our agenda and what we are trying to accomplish pretty nicely.â€
In a political minority, this is what success looks like.
Session Summary
In a state that President Obama carried by 9.5 points, and without a majority in both chambers, fully implementing a Conservative agenda was simply not realistic. In this scenario much of your work is done around the edges and in ensuring bad bills don’t pass. Sen. Whitver summed up the inroads the Party made, and how he sees the political landscape going forward, the following way:
“I think we accomplished three major things, though bills didn’t necessarily get passed out of it. The Democrats admitted that we needed commercial property tax relief and were passing bills talking about it. They admitted we needed the late term abortion bill, they didn’t pass the bill we wanted, but they were on record saying that we need to do something about it, and they agreed we need to limit spending. So three of our major priorities, they agreed with. We didn’t get the exact bills we wanted, but I think that shows that our message is the right message.â€
Not only is it the right message, more importantly, a look inside the reasoning behind the votes shows it is a genuine message backed by principal and strong will.
The real story for Conservative Iowans is found in uncovering the reason why more bills failed to pass on major issues. In the case of tax reform, “not good enough†was the why. In the case of SF 525, apprehension to expansive government and cautious foresight were the why.
I think that all concerned Republicans would agree that if the fight is waged on the principals of lower taxes and smaller government, we will gladly take a draw…for now.
Part 2 of this interview will publish Monday August 8th. Among the issues it will cover are: the battles looming once the next session is gavaled in, the state of public education in Iowa, the politics of Medicaid, and Iowa’s illegal immigration problem.
Click Here To Read Part 2
![A Sweeping Declaration of Intent: Gingrich unveils new “21st Century Contract with Americaâ€]()
by Will Rogers | Jul 27, 2011
In his recent visit to our state, President Obama toured Alcoa, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of aluminum, located in Davenport, IA. As a part of his visit, President Obama praised the manufacturing sector of the economy and touted the strong growth of private sector jobs over the last 15-months of his administration. President Obama also mentioned in his speech that not only had Alcoa rehired laid-off workers, but that it was anticipating the need to add new employees to its workforce.
I am delighted that the President recognizes the positive impact private sector manufacturers are having on the economy, but what he failed to mention as a part of his visit was that he is advocating for repeal of the Last-In, First-Out accounting method, which would devastate businesses in our country, cost workers their jobs, and hurt our recovering economy.
The Last-In, First-Out accounting method, better know as LIFO, is a textbook accounting method that has been used by businesses for over 70 years. LIFO allows businesses to manage inventories in a way that helps protect assets from the costs associated with inflation. As a part of this method, businesses may incur a tax liability that has been held over from one year to the next, which is called a LIFO reserve.
President Obama proposes that the LIFO reserve should be eliminated and that businesses should pay a retroactive tax on this liability. Estimates put the amount the federal government would stand to collect from repealing LIFO at between $50-100 billion dollars.
President Obama says that he is only trying to end a tax break for oil companies and billionaires, so he can reduce deficit spending. And, while I applaud his, and other, noble efforts to reduce deficit spending and lower our national debt, repealing LIFO is precisely the wrong way to go about it.
The President and so many others who are advocating for the repeal of LIFO don’t seem to understand that this one time shot of revenue would have a chilling effect on the recovering U.S. economy and devastate businesses that use LIFO, many of which are manufacturers and wholesalers.
President Obama is correct that many of the largest U.S. oil and energy companies use LIFO. But so do many of our largest manufacturers and wholesalers, such as Archer Daniels Midland, Caterpillar, U.S. Steel, Nucor, Wal-Mart, and Dupont. Alcoa, the same company that President Obama praised during his visit to Iowa, has the 10th largest LIFO reserve in the country.
And many Iowa businesses would be hurt by LIFO repeal. John Deere, Meredith Publishing, Sukup Manufacturing, and Winnebago Industries, all use LIFO. So do farm equipment dealers, automobile dealers, grocery stores, and many other main street businesses.
A repeal of LIFO would have a huge impact on jobs as well. Employers would have to scramble to pay retroactive taxes and would be forced to lay off workers, cut health care benefits, stop contributions to 401(k) plans, and cancel planned hiring.
President Obama should take LIFO repeal off the table as part of his deficit reduction talks with Congress. And, if he won’t, Congress should refuse to pursue LIFO repeal as a part of the negotiations process for the sake of our country.
Reprinted from The Retailer, an Iowa Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association Publication, by permission.
Page 6 of 8« First«...45678»
Preparing for the Supreme Court Fallout
