Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

Freedom Of Religion For All

Freedom Of Religion For All

Update: word usage mentioned in comments – Ed.

Bus in QuestionThis past week we were hit with what many probably thought was a a set of odd ideas. This all started when DART (Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority… that is, the local bus company) started displaying ads purchased by the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers.

Of course, those ads could only be trouble.

Full disclosure: I am a born-again Jesus Freak of the 1st order.  I don’t want any confusion on this point as we proceed.

Odd idea #1: Atheists would be so bold as to attack God (or in some minds, Christians).  Today, we Christians are tending to be very sensitive to any kind of “persecution”.  If only we knew what persecution really is.  Personally, I was amazed that anyone actually made a fuss about these ads to begin with.  I’ve seen a lot more evil on the side of a bus than this statement: “Don’t Believe in God?  You are Not Alone”.  Quick, Martha, hide the kids and load the guns!

No, this was not an attack on any person.  I cannot even consider it an attack on God.  It is certainly a very vocal expression of a group’s decision to reject God, but I think God’s pretty much accustomed to people not believing in Him, or even when believing, still rejecting His plan for them.

Personally, I thought it was refreshing to see people who hold a religious perspective that is so contrary to what I think of as the norm and Truth, to be willing to express their perspective and reach out to others who share it.

Odd idea #2: Atheists don’t have the same rights as others to publicly share their (lack of) beliefs.  Although we have struggled over the past few decades to halt the erosion of our first amendment rights, it’s interesting that there was such a quick assumption that Atheists don’t deserve the same consideration as say, Christians.  As soon as the outcry hit, DART reacted and pulled the ads.  All kinds of excuses ensued.  The ACLU jumped in.  Heaven’s temple shook.  Governor Chet Culver even expressed his opinion (he was “offended” by the message of the ads).

Unfortunately, the bus company has been smarting from recent pedestrian accidents that have led to policy changes and may lead to bigger problems… the media nightmare was getting worse for them now, and the apparent public sentiment was to pull the ads.  Bad timing.  Bad decision.  It was making things worse, not better.

Odd idea #3: Bus companies don’t have the right to decide what ads they run or don’t run.  Buses have limited advertising space, and I assume they sell the space on a first come first serve basis.  Unless of course they don’t have as many ad clients as they’d like.  Now, if they specifically targeted one group to block but allowed a competing group (say, Christians), that would probably be a problem (not sure if a legal problem, but at least a political one) .  But if they decided to not allow ads for any religious group they might be okay.  But I think we all know where that would go… a lot of ads on buses are for religiously affiliated organizations (many attempting to reach out to people with needs they can serve).

So, technically one might make a case that the bus company was within its rights to pull the ad.  That, however, is not a case I would want to see fall in front of Sotomayer.

One caveat to that… DART, I believe, has been a beneficiary of government, especially Federal, money.  Which totally kills their ability to act independently (DART may actually be government run, but I’m not clear on how that works).

Odd idea #4: Bus companies can’t change their minds.  This is purely political silliness.  Obviously, anyone can err and then correct themselves.  The media frenzy over this has been no surprise, but people involved in trying to make a difference in the world need to focus on the real issues… and most of all the Conservative voices in our society need to stop pandering to unproductive religious polarization and accept the very facts that God himself accepts: not everyone is going to follow Jesus, and everyone begins apart from Him.  Continuing to castigate DART only serves to make Christians and political/social Conservatives look petty and misguided.

Odd idea #5: The First Amendment is intended to serve the interests of God, that is, Christians.  The Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I will restrain myself from entering an all-out examination of the purpose of this amendment.  The point I wish to make is simple: there is no mention of God or Jesus or Christians.  The same amendment that protects the rights of Christians protects the same freedom of expression for Atheists.

So, the end of the story is that the ads are back.  Hopefully we can move on.

Reading assignment:

US Constitution – Amendment 1

The Letter from Paul to the Romans

Iowa: The “Fleece Me” State

Iowa: The “Fleece Me” State

free-moneyMore evidence that we need to put better controls on our government.  And before you discard this discussion as “more of the same government stupidity” that we’ve become accustomed to writing off as just “how the system works”, stop and read through this.  And really think about it.

I am loath to speculate on what specifically happened here, that is, how Rebuild Iowa managed to send $100,000 out to the towns of Dunkerton and Fairbank despite the lack of need or request for the money.  The story makes it sound like they just, well, used National Weather Service information. 

But I can’t wait to hear what the Governor’s office has to say about it.  If anything.

As you may know, Rebuild Iowa is a state project to coordinate spending the money allocated by the Legislature to help Iowa communities recover from the weather-related damage of 2008.  From the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier story:

Tina Potthoff, a spokesperson for Rebuild Iowa, said the Iowa Legislature approved the funds with no application process and with Gov. Chet Culver’s blessing. The money came from the state’s general fund.

“Since it’s state money, it comes with less restrictions than federal money,” Potthoff said. 

I am certainly glad that we were able to provide necessary funds to help the tornado and flood ravaged communities to recover, but there is an operational principle at work here that is a key to the gutting of our state’s financial resources:

If government money has been allocated, it needs to be spent on something, anything, quickly before someone decides to take it back.

After all, it’s free money, right?

The only problem is that it’s not free.  We are getting a superb opportunity to see how the state government, from the Legislature to the Governor to the folks that have been carelessly given free reign to just spend a huge chunk of money as they see fit (and feel compelled to spend every bit of it), and the folks who are recipients of our state’s enourmous generosity.

I don’t blame the leaders in Fairbank and Dunkerton.  The money is likely to be put to good use and may even help prevent loss of life in the future.  They may, however, become unwitting villains in a story they had no hand in writing.  I hope, for the sake of our state finances, that they decide to return the money to the state and await an appropriate opportunity to finance what things they truly need.  But I also wouldn’t blame them one bit if they kept the money and used it as they saw fit.

The State of Iowa, however, needs better accountability.  We already know that the current leadership of the General Assembly has become drunk with power and the unfettered ability to spend our state into oblivian.  The Governor is the author of what can, at best, be described as a constitutionally unauthorized bond measure that will keep the state in debt for decades.  And the Legislature puts no real constraints on the Governor appointed boards who are authorized to spend millions in tax dollars, in some cases for good cause, but in no case with appropriate public accountability. 

The spending needs to stop, or we will pay for it, either through higher taxes or other increased costs.

We, as the citizens and taxpayers of Iowa, are the ultimate holders of accountability.  We have lost the opportunity to address the legislation that led to this chaos.  We must voice, and continue to voice, our objections to the feckless manner in which our Legislature and Governor have brought us here, and take whatever appropriate action we can, including writing, phoning, and emailing them to voice those objects.  And then vote them out of office.

I would even advocate recall elections.  At this point I have no idea what that involves or what it would cost the state.  The question becomes whether the financial cost of such elections would be outweighed by the continued impact of another year with these folks in power.

Unless of course you actually like this.

Governor Culver’s Polling Is Down

Governor Culver’s Polling Is Down

opinion-poll-unsatisfactory

From the Iowa GOP web site:

Des Moines – The latest Survey USA poll indicates that more than half of all Iowans disapprove of Governor Chet Culver’s job performance.  Jeff Boeyink, Executive Director of the Republican Party of Iowa, said today, “Governor Culver’s free-spending, big debt, and job-killing agenda is out of touch with Iowa values and it is reflected in job approval ratings that are the lowest of his tenure as Governor.  More than half of Iowa voters now disapprove of the Governor’s job performance.”

In the June 2009 poll conducted by Survey USA, only 42% of Iowans approve of the Governor’s job performance, with more than half expressing disapproval. Independent voters are especially critical of Governor Culver, with 56% of those respondents saying they disapprove of his performance and only 35% expressing support for his work.

Boeyink continued, “Governor Culver and majority Democrats ignored the best interest of Iowans during the last legislative session and now they’re paying the price.  Iowans said they were against borrowing more than a billion dollars to pay for short-term projects. Iowans also said they want a vote to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And, Iowans say they want to keep federal deductibility.  On each and every one of these issues, Governor Culver consistently ignores the will of the people.

“Iowa Republicans are ready, willing, and able to deliver on the priorities of Iowa voters and, if given an opportunity by the voters, will do so,” concluded Boeyink.

Link to the current poll results

As we’ve said here in the past, Iowa’s funamental financial problem is excessive spending.  Misuse of funds (spending money specifically earmarked for infrastructure on non-infrastructure projects) is a close second. 

The 2009 Legislative Session garnered a significant amount of attention from Iowans specifically because of the inability of the Democratically General Assembly to cut the Governor’s budget (despite Republican recommendations that would have saved millions, many of which came from public comment).  Throwing the public out of a public forum, with no reaction from the Governor’s office, certainly did nothing to enhance the public’s perspective of Democrats respect for those that sent them to serve in Des Moines.

Democrats have an additional opportunity in 2010 to make the lives of everyday Iowans better… or worse.  Continued disregard and apparent contempt for the needs and resources of Iowans may end up guaranteeing a backlash in November 2010. 

We really want to see what’s best for Iowans and it would be great if Iowans can have input into the process.  What is too bad is that the fate of Iowans’ futures are tied to the politics of reelection.

April 25: A Day That Will Live For 20 Years

April 25: A Day That Will Live For 20 Years

iowa-state-capitol-dollarsUpdate: House File 376 (the bonding bill debated Friday evening into Saturday morning) passed the House at about 1:50 AM. – Ed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Iowa House is currently debating the bonding measure  and making my head spin!  $750 million has turned into $650 million, and then other additional principle expenses, plus the interest costs put the cost for Iowans at over $1.4 billion (yes, with a “b”) (some put it at $1.2 billion).  $70 million per year for the next 20 years.Listening to the floor debate, it sounds like the bill sponsors can’t really answer any questions very effectively, and are just throwing money at, what?  As we discussed earlier, we just don’t need this money, these spending plans that aren’t really plans at all, just a lot of ideas to pick from right now.

Just reported that Republicans all signed and filed a letter of dissent for violating the Iowa State Constitution.  From what I’ve heard listening to this, the Democrats have come up with some approach that perhaps keeps them technically in line with the letter of the Constitution, but not the spirit.

Another bill Iowans are not going to like: Earlier today, Senate File 483 was passed by the House.  The bill extends the timeframe allowed by the state to pay refunds back on income tax refunds by a month.  That is stealing from Iowans… actually a type of tax increase.   If you have big refunds coming, it’s probably time to change your W4 to reduce the amount of the refund.

And the Standings Bill has resurrected a number of ideas that had previously be scuttled.

As I post this, it is 12:45 AM and debate continues.  Democrats are probably relieved that they could put this off until Friday evening and Saturday morning.  They’ve succeeded in delaying long enough that many Iowans just aren’t bothering to pay attention so they might be able to get away with what they want.  Thank goodness House Republicans are continuing to put up a fight.

Iowans will remember today regardless. April 25 should become a new war cry against an arrogant government intent upon imposing its will upon the people of Iowa… indeed, this is a trend that did not start in Iowa, but clearly will be felt intensely here.  “Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain”.  That’s our state motto.  We should not roll over and allow the government to get away with putting us so deeply in debt against our will, both constitutionally and through voicing openly our opinion.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And the Iowa Senate is gaveling back in.

Iowa Democrats Bonding To Draw Session To A Close?

Iowa Democrats Bonding To Draw Session To A Close?

chet-culverAt a cost, it seems. Democratic leaders got together yesterday after several days of stalemating between the Governor and Legislative Leaders (all Dems). As you may know, Culver wants to borrow $750 million for infrastructure projects, and both House and Senate leaders have been resistant to this approach (probably recognizing that most Iowans do not want to see the State borrowing this kind of money).  So, while the good news is that legislators will probably get their work done in the next few days, the public may lose if this bond measure is passed (dubbed “I-JOBS“).

Only $150 million of the money would go to roads and bridges, and the rest to repairs from the disasters of 2008, renewable energy and other miscellaneous items.

I’m guessing this will include the $3 million needed from the State to get the $30 million in stimulus money from the Fed for the high-speed rail between Des Moines and Davenport which was talked up yesterday as part of Obama’s visit to Newton.

I don’t know a lot about the infrastructure needs in northwest Iowa, but evidently improvements are needed.  Mentioned in this story, Culver wants to see highway 20 (an east-west state highway running between Sioux City and Dubuque, running through Fort Dodge, Cedar Falls, and Waterloo) upgraded to four-lanes across the entire state.

Problem 1: Culver wants to use gambling revenues to cover the payments.   The gaming industry is not the most reliable, and the tax credits we recently implemented certainly demonstrate that and reduce the revenue from this source.  As Iowans (and others from out of state) become less and less interested in sustaining this industry, we will likely struggle with having revenues from these sources.  Which means we could end up spending general fund money on this.

Problem 2: This money is not even being allocated for actual projects.  A committee will be deciding how to spend the money (I wonder how much they’ll need for new carpets).  So we don’t know where the money will be spent until after we’ve borrowed it.  This will help perpetuate an already painful cycle of overspending and then cries for more money later.

Problem 3: Much of the road work to be done by this bonding will need to be replaced before we pay off the bonds.

Problem 4: Culver’s urgency in getting this passed “quickly” leads me to believe that he knows his position is tenuous, and that perhaps we need to look more closely at who will benefit from this.  I know it won’t be me.

Problem 5: Borrowing should be confined to emergencies, and should be emergencies AFTER we’ve exhausted the emergency (rainy day) funds already in place.

Peter Orazem, an Economic professor at Iowa State University, recently stated that the bond plan is unnecessary.  There is already over $1 billion of money going into flood relief and infrastructure improvements (from the rainy day funds and Federal moneys) that will provide enough jobs for those out of work in the construction industry.  Indeed, Iowa’s unemployment rate for construction workers (2.6%) is significantly below the national rate (over 10%).  Clearly, we risk creating projects that while funded, cannot be completed timely due to the lack of skilled workers.  And, as Professor Orazem explains, that will increase the costs for all projects (workers will be able to demand more money).

What troubles me is that there are other moneys specifically set aside for these types of projects.  The Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF) appropriations for 2008 and 2009 (estimated) were more than double for 2006 and 2007.  Evidently, revenues driving into RIIF are likely down due to tax credits provided to the gambling industry beginning this year, and interest on rainy-day funds is down due to rate drops and the use of some of that money.

If we don’t have the money and really need to have all this work done, perhaps it’s time to prioritize better.  We continue to have money come in from the Fuel Tax which is supposed to be used for roads and bridges, and we have money coming from the Fed to cover some $350 million in infrastructure costs.

I’m opposed to the bonding.  I can’t see this being the right solution.   Culver presses the fact that it will bring jobs to Iowa, but once the money is spent, then what?  Then the jobs go away.  It seems to me that infrastructure management should be designed as a structured and sustainable function of  the government that grows at a rate tied to inflation and population growth.  We shouldn’t even have to come up with new solutions for infrastructure each year, and we definitely shouldn’t have to have special bonds to support maintenance and real growth related improvements.  Revenues specific to this operation should be tied directly to growth and use.  What makes increasing the Fuel Tax an appropriate option, in my opinion, is that this source of funding does not account for inflation automatically as it is structured today.

Let’s get the work done this year that is really needed; we’ve got the money for that.  Let’s get the areas impacted by last year’s disasters back on their feet and worry about making things even better next year.

Oh yeah, right, next year’s an election year.  Gotta choose doing what’s right versus getting elected.  Chet, I wouldn’t worry about that if I were you.  2010 will be one year when the prior 24 months won’t be so easily forgotten.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I wonder if anyone has looked at the revenue impact of the smoking ban.  I’m just saying.

    Log in