by | May 9, 2012
After failing to reach a compromise on tax reform for the second consecutive session, today the Iowa Legislature adjourned until next year. In the end the Governor-backed House proposal on property tax reform failed to even see a vote in the Senate, as Senator Gronstal refused to bring it to the floor.
We will have analysis on this in the coming days, but my gut tells me that privately many Republicans, especially those in the 2010 crew, are more than willing to gamble on a majority in the Iowa Senate after November. This is not to say that they did not want to put something on the books this session, but there are multiple reasons why this conclusion was advantageous.
First, considering the alternative, the optics couldn’t of turned out much better. Some in the Republican caucus had even publicly hinted that not getting a deal may be the best deal, and if they had pushed walking away from the session a week ago it could have easily been pinned on them. Instead the way it ended, with the Senate majority leader failing to bring up the already passed House bill, Democrats were left holding the bag–and the blame. Making matters worse for Gronstal and company is the fact that they lost two Democrats in the final vote on the Senate version, which means their own plan did not even pass the Democrat controlled Senate.  With the House passing a tax reform plan that the Senate chose not only to ignore, but to ignore in favor of holding a losing vote on their own plan, there is almost no way for this to be spun as a Republican inspired log-jam.
Second, from a strictly long-term strategic viewpoint, Republicans waiting till after November is also a win-win.  The reason for this is simple. There is no policy downside in waiting till next session because, even if Republicans fail to take the majority in the Senate, there is absolutely no way the Democrats will put a smaller tax reduction plan on the table next session.  They have already staked out their ground politically on this issue and they can only agree to either the same level of cuts or more cuts than they proposed this session. Can you imagine what would happen if they came back next session and put an offer on the table of less tax relief?…point made.  The upside for Republicans however is potentially huge–a majority, in which case they would get what they had on the table this session, and probably then some.
There is certainly more to come on the session wrap in the near future, including Republican reaction, but for the time being below is the full text of Governor Branstad’s official statement on the end of the 2012 session.
************************************************************************************************************
In January, the lieutenant governor and I brought forward a bold agenda focused on the dual goals of job creation and transformational education reform. I want to thank the General Assembly for considering our priorities and for adopting a significant number of them to help move our state forward. [See list below.]
Legislation passed by this General Assembly will provide our Iowa Economic Development Authority with additional tools to help meet our administration’s ambitious goal to create 200,000 new jobs. We have made significant progress on that goal during this first year and a half and the High Quality Jobs Incentive Fund and Employee Stock Option Plan legislation will help accelerate those efforts.
I am also pleased that this General Assembly took a first important step toward our goal of transformational education reform. While these initial steps may be considered by some as small, our new early childhood literacy initiative, in particular, will have lasting effects on the lives of thousands of Iowa children and significantly improve their chances of future academic and career success. We also enhance teacher accountability by requiring annual reviews.
However, the 2012 session may be remembered as much for what failed to be accomplished as for what actually was accomplished. Despite the best efforts of my office and a bipartisan majority in the Iowa House, the inability of Senate Democrats to adopt serious property tax reform has put Iowa taxpayers in jeopardy of seeing significant property tax increases in the coming year.
The Senate failed to support legislation based on the framework I believe was agreed to as a roadmap to finding a compromise between my office, the House, and the Senate. They failed to pass a meaningful step forward in our goal to make Iowa’s tax system more competitive or assist with our critically needed job creation goals.
As a result, Iowa taxpayers face yet another year with property taxes that are scheduled to grow nearly $2 billion over the next eight years. This is absolutely unacceptable and Iowa voters will have an opportunity to resolve this impasse in November.
Lt. Governor Reynolds and I are proud to work with all members of the Iowa General Assembly and proud to serve our citizens each and every day.  We will continue over the next seven and a half months of 2012 to travel the state, promote our ambitious agenda, and work aggressively toward the achievement of our four goals:
1.     200,000 new jobs for Iowans;
2.     25% increase in personal incomes;
3.     Reduce the cost of government by 15%; and
4.     Provide our children with the nation’s finest education.
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.
by | Nov 15, 2011
This is second installment of a 2-part interview. To read part one click here.
Health Insurance Exchange
The debate raging on a national level regarding Obama Care has produced 50 separate state level clashes on this unpopular legislation’s viability, practicality, and future. Currently 27 states are suing the Federal government on the grounds the law is unconstitutional, while last week a referendum in Ohio resulted in 66% of voters expressing their wishes to be excluded.
In Iowa the form this debate has taken largely centers on the state level requirement to set up a health insurance exchange to work in accordance with Obama Care. Democrats tried last session to construct this exchange but the measure failed and set the scene for an all-out slug fest in 2012.
The roll-call from this Democratic attempt, in which 12 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the exchange, was a major factor Ms. Rogers cites in spurring her decision to run for this House seat, “It was something that some of these Republicans campaigned against and then went in and voted for, and that was a real thorn in my side.â€
Besides viewing it as flatly unconstitutional, she would have voted no on the exchange for two main reasons. The first is due to differing interpretations on what failure to set up the exchanges would result in. Though the Republicans who voted in favor did so on the grounds that failing to do so would trigger authorization of the Federal government to do it for us, Ms. Rogers believes that not having the exchanges would result in Iowa receiving a waiver from the Executive branch:
“We have to fight the full implementation of Obama Care every way we can. The Supreme Court could announce as early as tomorrow whether they will hear the Obama Care challenges. Why would we volunteer to set up a new state bureaucracy before the Supreme Court has ruled? We shouldn’t. Why would we set up a state exchange and volunteer to pay for that unconstitutional debacle? We shouldn’t. Obama has stated publicly that he feels he will be forced to grant waivers to states that haven’t passed the exchanges because there is no way to administer Obama Care without them. That means that by refusing to implement the health insurance exchanges, Iowans effectively have the ability to opt out of a major portion of Obama Care.â€
The second reason is funding, and more specifically the long and destructive history the states and the federal government have in jointly paying for programs, “State governments, including Iowa, so often get duped on the promise of free federal money. The issue with these exchanges is that they come in partially funded, and sure there is that promise of federal money there but the other part has to come from the state—and that means from the taxpayer. It’s not just a tax hike up front with the federal government, that we can’t control, but it is going to be a tax hike up front for the portion that our state has to pay.â€
Issues Going Forward
Education Reform
Having spoken to many Republicans, and interviewing multiple candidates and elected officials, you don’t need to be a political expert to see that Governor Branstad’s outline for reforming Iowa’s educational system is in real trouble. Although constructed as a proposal big enough to build a legacy on, when you get equal blow-back from Conservatives and the teachers’ union the chances of breaking ground, let alone building anything, are slim.
Having worked her way through college teaching private pre-school and kindergarten this is an area that Ms. Rogers has a special interest in:
 “I don’t think its rocket science to figure out why people aren’t rushing to support a plan that takes the best teachers out of the classroom at a time when we are trying to find ways to better reach children. The major problem I have with it is that the good teachers are going to be teaching 50% less, and how on earth are you going to help children when you are taking their teachers away? What the plan does is it increases bureaucracy and decreases the number of good teachers we have in the classroom.â€
Beyond disliking it for those reasons, she fears, and was told by a Department of Education employee in the Branstad administration, that one of the effects of the reform would be to divert good teachers from Ankeny to Des Moines. If true, this would not only threaten losing quality teachers in the classroom but possibly losing them to a school district outside of HD 37.
In place of the current system, and the Governor’s proposed reform, the changes she would push to implement would have a different focus:
 “Educational choice is one of my number one issues. I love open enrollment because it does introduce an element of choice into the public school system. I would also go further and allow more freedom for home-schoolers, more freedom for charter schools, and more freedom for private schools. If vouchers are a part of that, even better, because they are a tool that introduces a market element into the system that lowers the cost and increases the amount of learning that is going on.â€
Illegal Immigration
Though failure to take control of the Iowa Senate last week severely reduced its likelihood, a widespread willingness of Iowa Republicans to address illegal immigration is beginning to form. Ms. Rogers indicated that she would favor potentially passing legislation to hamper Iowa’s influx of illegal aliens and when asked specifically about Arizona’s recent attempt had this to say, “I don’t see anything wrong with what Arizona has done, because when they joined the Union they basically said that we are going to give you (the federal government) the responsibility to protect us and that this is no longer just our state’s border but it’s now a Federal border. All the Arizona law does is re-enforce the fact that it is still a state border. If the Federal government is going to back out of their responsibility to protect it as our nation’s border I think that Arizona has every right to protect it as a state border.â€
Varnum
Although the list of Republican legislative priorities is long and getting longer, it’s safe to say that passing a Constitutional Amendment barring gay marriage in Iowa has a home in the top three. In one of the most cowardly and inexcusable political maneuvers in our state’s history, Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has managed to save rural Democrats by robbing all Iowans of the opportunity to have their voices heard.
As one would suspect, being an attorney and a Conservative, Ms. Rogers has a strong opinion on the Varnum decision. From a legal perspective the two problems she has with the Supreme Court’s ruling was that they considered some issues that were not part of the legal briefs filed and “they applied a heightened level of scrutiny to a new class, and created this class based on a behavior and not a real and immutable characteristic.†Noting that she was not surprised by the unanimous nature of the decision she added, “I think it was a political decision from beginning to end and that they had the result in mind before they ever read the briefs.â€
Analysis of the Race
Three factors that are likely to come into play for her candidacy are how the district views the Tea Party, how she navigates through a crowded field, and how voters react to her relative youth. Far from shying away from any of them, she actually views all three as positives—and makes some very convincing arguments in the process.
For any Tea Party politician, whether running or governing, an issue always in play is the political peril inherent in cutting government and removing services that people have become accustomed to. While its effect will be softened by the fact that this is a Republican primary, and that applying Tea party principals at the state level as opposed to the federal level is a far different animal, it still will remain an issue. An example of this is that next session will gavel in with the Governor seeking legislative approval to cut Medicaid. This is a reality that Ms. Rogers recognizes and will seek to deal with in the following way, “You have to educate people and make them realize that some of these things are not theirs and that government can’t give them anything that they don’t first take away from somebody else. And if you wouldn’t reach into your neighbors pocket and take it then you shouldn’t be living your life in a way that you are willing to take it through the government.â€
The fact that there will be many other contenders vying for the seat does not intimidate her in the slightest and is something she sees as a net positive for the district, “I’m not afraid to run in a primary against five or six other people, and really I’m excited for the district because they will have an opportunity to vote for someone who is as Conservative as this district is and that shares their principles. Even being a lot younger than the other candidates, I still probably have a longer track record of political activism and fighting for these principles.â€
As she mentioned, at 25 she will be both the youngest person in this race and one of the younger candidates in recent memory to run for the Iowa House. While I could be wrong, my sense is that this won’t play a big role in the race. I say this, first, because it would have to be brought up by another candidate and it’s unlikely that this contest will devolve into that type of an unseemly affair. Second, as she notes, she has the background and the experience to offset and eliminate it as a viable factor, “I think that youth and inexperience can go together, but I’ve been in this long enough that inexperience isn’t a word that applies to me. The two things that are really important are your motivation and your principals, and I have both in spades.â€
After spending a few hours with her, this is a claim that is hard to doubt. She has a keen sense of tactical politics and one could easily see her going toe-to-toe with both the fellow Republicans in this primary and opposing Democrats should she be selected.
The results of the recent Ankeny City Council election, in which the most Conservative candidates running all won, indicates that voters will certainly give her a chance to win them over. She will likely make the most of it—and in doing so make this race very, very interesting.
Photo courtesy of Dave Davidson, whose work can be found at prezography.com
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 | Jan 17, 2011
I would have liked to have gotten this posted Friday, but family issues interjected themselves.
As you know, both Governor Terry Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds were sworn in to their respective offices Friday. The Inauguration ceremony, which is conducted as a joint session of the Iowa House and Iowa Senate, was held at Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines.  There was appropriate pomp and respect in the procession and swearing in of both Reynolds and Branstad, and about 2,000 people were present to witness the event.
The music at the event was awesome, and the selection of songs by the Heartland Youth Choir was wonderful. Â I deeply appreciate the pride and respect given to our flags and the servicemen and women conducting during the presentation of the colors.
One can find some thoughtful and insightful thoughts from Shane Vanderhart (and later reflections as well), Kathy Obradovich, and Bleeding Heartland (yes, a liberal perspective shouldn’t hurt now and then).
Both gave speeches that provided an introduction into a kind of new beginning for state government in Iowa, and the foundation of their thoughts on how state government should serve Iowans.
Lieutenant Governor Reynolds offered some thoughts on the values being brought to Iowa government, and emphasized government’s need to listen to its people and focus on key areas like education while encouraging Iowans to proactively reach out to those around them in need. Â She use the story of the Pender family in Windsor Heights to help emphasize this.
Governor Branstad more or less kept to his promise of a relatively short speech, but was long on promise. Â The core message was that there would be a “new covenant” between government and Iowans. Â His presentation focused on 5 main principles:
- We have too much government and it must be reduced
- Government must serve the people
- It is time to restore integrity and transparency to our government decision-making processes
- A renewed commitment to provide the best education in the world
- We must celebrate success
The Governor’s speech was filled with a substantial amount of passion and emphasis on the areas that need work, and I was intrigued by the number of times the audience rose to their feet in response to his words. Â The message itself, a message of the kind of government many have been calling for, a message of Iowans reaching out and helping other Iowans directly instead of waiting for government to act as a proxy, a message of renewing our commitment to education and commerce… this message is a good start for the new administration.
It’s interesting to note that in other countries, a change in leadership is ofter referred to as a “new government”. Â We don’t tend to use that expression in the US so much, but it seems an appropriate expression at this time.
It’s worth a read.
That said, I was reminded in a conversation with my dad tonight about the cyclic nature of history and politics. Â I’m personally encouraged by what the Governor shared on Friday, and between his administration, Iowa’s new Republican House and growing Republican presence in the Senate. Â My hopes are high that we will be able to get our fiscal house in order and move to more careful spending.
However, we have been here before and our tendency has been to start off on the right foot (no pun intended) and end up spending ourselves into a stupor. Â It will be difficult, but as citizens we need to be vigilant regarding the work of government and expect, nay, demand scrupulous management of our state’s resources from the beginning to the end of each term of office of our representatives and Governor. Â It is a mistake to push the cart in the right direction and hope it reaches its destination unaltered.
The citizens needs to keep the cart straight.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A lot of people worked hard to prepare for this event and the ball later that day. Â One person I want to mention whom I noticed in the procession was Mike Cook, who was a member of the Inaugural Committee. Â There were clearly a number of great people on the committee, but Mike is someone I have worked with throughout my tenure with Polk County Republicans, and have admired him during that time.
Mike Cook has achieved greatness in my eyes because of his commitment to working as hard as he can to support the goals of our party despite physical challenges that would keep many away from any volunteer activities. Â He is reliable, consistent, focused on the goal, and totally supportive of the party’s work. Â Rarely do we have a need for volunteers where Mike does not show up. Whether it’s parades, phone calls, office work, manning a booth at an event, helping with setup, speaking before a group, Mike is always ready to step up and do what it takes to make a difference.
We have a lot of hard working volunteers, but Mike Cook shines brightly among them.
After failing to reach a compromise on tax reform for the second consecutive session, today the Iowa Legislature adjourned until next year. In the end the Governor-backed House proposal on property tax reform failed to even see a vote in the Senate, as Senator Gronstal refused to bring it to the floor.
