by | Jul 11, 2012
After easily defeating a primary challenger in June, Iowa House member Kevin Koester was kind enough to sit down with The Conservative Reader: Iowa to discuss his upcoming general election in November, as well as the many issues he will be dealing with should he earn a third term in the Iowa Legislature.
The Primary, The General Election, and the Pulse of House District 38
The process of winning re-election for Rep. Koester began even before the legislative session ended, as the first order of business was winning a primary challenge by Saylor Township resident Brett Nelson. As the session ran long, Koester made several hundred phone calls in his downtime and began getting acquainted with the voters in his newly re-drawn House District 38.
He handily defeated Nelson 456 to 80, and took many positives away from the effort this challenge required, “I’m very grateful for both the margin of victory and for the experience of the primary because it really helped energize my campaign for November, and gave me a great familiarity with the new territory in the district.â€Â In an interesting aside, after not meeting or speaking to each other throughout the primary, the two have since met and Nelson even took up an offer by Rep. Koester to join him in a weekly bible study—a great, albeit rare, good ending to a primary challenge.
Talking to voters throughout this process affirmed to Rep. Koester that the dominant issues for his November show-down with Democrat John Phoenix will include the state budget, government over-spending, and the economy. Besides these economic issues, the background of the two candidates, combined with the issues still facing the legislature, serve to telegraph the subject matter that will be front and center in this race—education reform and public sector unions.
While Koester has decades of experience with education in Iowa, Phoenix was elected to the Des Moines School Board where he served for six years. In addition to this, Phoenix also has been a long-time union steward, has already been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, and strongly believes that “unions help make our country stronger and improve the lives of all workers.â€
Speaking to these differences, Rep. Koester believes that, “because of his role and his voice on collective bargaining issues and union viewpoints, there will be plenty of distance between us to give the voters a clear choiceâ€. Given the fact that Mr. Koester is a strong Conservative Republican and Phoenix is a pro-union, former school board member who featured Des Moines super-liberal Ako Abdul-Samad at his first fundraiser—the gulf between the two is likely to be enormous on a long list of issues. Here is a look at two of these issues, and where Rep. Koester stands on them.
Education Reform
Like most Iowa Republicans, Mr. Koester was very disappointed in the progress made on education reform by the last General Assembly. “The things we voted on last session were not reforms, they were Band-Aids. We did not do surgery, and that is what is truly needed.â€
After seeing countless specific and detailed proposals get torn apart by the opposing sides, he stands ready to work on a broad frame of reform that can be agreed on in principle and passed. “What I have is a drive to dismantle the fluff, and no patience for the simple arguments that only serve to attack valid ideas. We need to stop the nit picking and the warring, and come up with a product and move forward on it.â€
Two realities in the current system that he sees as negatively affecting students are the lack of teachers being removed for poor performance and the practice of “last in first outâ€, which is the seniority structure that protects long-time teachers from being let go, in favor of removing less tenured teachers when staff sizes are cut. This practice has long been under fire by Republicans because it refuses to take into account the skill level and effectiveness of each teacher. “Last in first out is bad for kids. We need to look at who is performing and have that be the prime focus, and not necessarily just who has the most experience. A pay raise needs to be given for performing better, not just given out for coming back the next year and being a year olderâ€.
In terms of the reforms needed to reverse our recent embarrassing trend in education, the crucial ingredient in Rep. Koester’s view is to quantify the performance of the employees in our education system. He will not support any proposal without this component, and he concisely summed up his position on education by saying:
We will have meaningful and fundamental reform when we agree on how we are going to measure student learning, how we are going to measure each of our Principal’s leadership and influence in the classroom, and how we are going to measure teachers and instruction. That is where the rubber meets the road on this issue.
Unions and Collective Bargaining
With Governor Branstad recently signaling a desire to look at their financial impact on the state, and John Phoenix’s close personal ties to them, there is little doubt that public sector unions and collective bargaining will be hotly debated in this race.
Rep. Koester has already taken several votes on this issue, all with the goal of bringing public sector unions more in line with the realities of the private sector, and attempting to prevent the payouts involved from breaking the bank as we have seen in several other states in recent years.
The votes he has taken include voting three times for employees of the Legislative branch, including himself, to pay a portion of their health insurance cost. The first was for a contribution of $50 a month, the second for a $100 a month, and the third for $200 a month. “I have gone on record every opportunity I have had insisting that Legislators are charged something, and I strongly believe that all state employees should help pay for the cost of their health insurance.â€
He also voted in favor of the measure that went into effect July 1st, which changed the formula for calculating retirement benefits for state employees. In the past payouts were figured using an average of an employee’s top three wage earning years, which has now been changed to take the average of the top five years.
In the larger picture, he supports having a policy ensuring that the number of government employees does not swell beyond what is needed and can be financially sustained in the long run. To this end he favors implementing breaks on the growth of state government that ties the number of workers and salaries to the overall growth of our state economy, and prioritizes the issue the following way:
I want to start with how we plan for how many state jobs there will be. You don’t grow the economy by growing the number of public jobs—that is socialism. The second thing is then addressing the disproportions in the health insurance contributions and the retirement benefits. The benefits are out of control compared to what the private sector is doing, and to what Iowa taxpayers are doing to take care of their families. We need to get those things in line, and what is fair for the rest of Iowans should be fair for the public employees that they are paying for.
Next Stop: November
Anyone who talks issues with Rep. Koester immediately realizes that he has a deep grasp on nearly all of them, including all the moving parts involved with each. On substance, he can go toe-to-toe with anyone and will shine in the public forums and debates with Mr. Phoenix.
As this contest slowly unfolds till November, the topics these two candidates debate along the way will be a roll call of every major issue facing the citizens of Iowa. In particular, the colliding ideologies on taxes, education, and public sector unions will be a true foreshadowing of the debates that will consume the next General Assembly.
How strong a candidate John Phoenix will be remains to be seen, but Republicans throughout Iowa and HD 38 can be assured that Kevin Koester is up to the challenge—and will remain a strong Conservative voice for the Party in the coming years.
by | Apr 25, 2012
Last night’s Polk County Central Committee meeting was a harbinger for both good and bad things to come for the future of Republicans in Polk County.
The Highlights
Among the several speakers to address the committee were Polk County Sheriff candidate Dan Charleston and Senator Rick Bertrand (pictured at right). Charleston has been very active in his attempt to unseat his boss Bill McCarthy, who has once again doubled down on his support for spreading controversial traffic cameras throughout Iowa. His bid to remove McCarthy will not be easy, however, this is an outcome that becomes more possible with McCarthy supporting a hot-button policy that the majority of Iowans reject. While Conservatives throughout Polk County will be rightly focused on state and Congressional seats in the coming months, it would be a mistake to ignore this race for sheriff. It can be easily argued that the performance and priorities of law enforcement has an equal impact on citizens at the County level as legislative seats. All Conservatives who are unaware of this race would be well advised to visit Dan Charleston’s website, were he lays out his positions on several issues (including traffic cameras and illegal immigration). It is safe to say he would bring a far different mindset to the job–and there is much to like.
While Senator Rick Bertrand was not on the agenda to speak, all in attendance were glad he made the trip. Speaking for nearly 20 minutes, he got fired up covering topics ranging from his background, his victory in a legal slander case against Iowa Democrats, and the future agenda of Senate Republicans.
Beyond being a gifted and enthusiastic speaker, the real positive to take away from his presence in the Iowa Senate is his potential to bridge the divides that have recently been created by the emergence of a more Libertarian brand of Republican in the party. I have asked him personally about the prospects of real legislative results from the Conservative movement in the Iowa Legislature–and I assure you he has a plan and will be front and center in achieving it. In my view, he is one of a handful of current Republican legislators who can effortlessly bridge the gap between the old and new guards in the Republican Party. In the coming months The Conservative Reader:Iowa will be laying out exactly what this 7 issue action plan is, and will be looking at each in detail.
The Low-Lights
Having been in attendance at the last two Central Committee meetings, there is little doubt left that the drama surrounding last month’s meeting is not going away. The divide between Chairman McLaughlin (along with other members of the leadership), and co-chair Dave Funk is quickly approaching critical mass. Several times during the meeting there was open bickering and contention between the two. This was taking place not in the side or back during down time, but actually during the meeting and at the front of the room.
As of this time I am not taking sides. Far more important than taking sides is finding some way for this strained situation to be resolved. Besides risking several political objects that are certainly within reach, this feud is simply embarrassing for all of the new folks who have been energized during the caucus and have made the time consuming decision to get involved. At this rate the attendance of these meetings will swell only on the grounds of voyeurism, as people will start coming to view a live version of the Jerry Springer Show. Finding a way to make these meetings a little less bland would be a more than worthy endeavor, however, this is not exactly what I had in mind.
Looking Forward
I will be in attendance at the next meeting, if it is plagued by these same issues than the report you read here following it will be of a far different tone. At that point critical mass will have unquestionably been reached and a movement to action will have to be initiated. With so much crucial work to be done in the coming months, continuing in this manner is simply not an option.
by | Mar 27, 2012
What had promised to be an explosive evening at the Polk County central committee meeting Tuesday night never really materialized.
Throughout the past two days buzz had been growing that an organized effort to unseat McLaughlin as Chairman would take place, and rumors were flying that the person spearheading this undertaking was Rep. Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill). What is clear following the meeting is that she was never involved at any level, and that the leader of the group aiming to replace the Chairman was in fact precinct 85 resident Craig Bergman.
The only fireworks transpired at the beginning of the meeting when a motion was made to suspend the rules and normal proceedings of the meeting and instead have a vote on removing the Chairman.  What played out was that, by a near three to one margin (91-39), the central committee voted to proceed with the meeting’s business as usual and have the showdown afterward. Presumably based on the large majority who stood in support of putting off the vote, the contingent on hand to oppose the Chairman realized that they did not have the numbers and chose to stand down on this night.
Perhaps the most memorable and foretelling moment of the night came when Chairman McLaughlin, on mic and standing at the podium, was explaining to a confused group of members that he was not avoiding a vote on his fate. He summed it up by saying, “if anyone wants to try to ‘send me to the showers’ they are welcome to do that”, which he followed a few seconds later with, “That said, I don’t intend to go to the showers I intend to finish my job.”
Clearly Kevin McLaughlin is not backing away anytime soon, and neither is the sizable sect passionate that his performance as Chairman has not been up to par. Based on the numbers it is hard to see how this group, in its current size and form, will be able to successfully remove the leadership in the middle of their term. It is fair to note, however, that while this effort was denied tonight, there has been widespread discontent and rumblings regarding what has been perceived as several organizational shortcomings.
My sense moving forward is that McLaughlin and his team will survive any future attempts to remove him. The final decider here will ultimately be what it always is–results. If their performance in November demonstrates success in electing Republicans, particularly Tom Latham, then their style and methods will be vindicated and they will be lauded. Should they not meet expectations, and should they fail to deliver a number of victories similar to their very successful predecessors–they will be quickly voted out in January.
Conservatives are often fond of saying that results, not good intentions, are what matters. What we have here is a perfect embodiment of this…as it should be.
by | Mar 9, 2012
Perhaps no issue better illustrates the philosophical divide between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans than the Earned Income Tax Credit. Here in Iowa a theatrical stunt a few weeks back by ultra-Liberal Iowa City Democrat Senator Joe Bolkcom put the issue front and center. In the hopes of pressuring Governor Branstad to support a huge increase in the Iowa Earned Income Tax Credit, Pleasantville resident Julie Heck was brought in to symbolize the need for this action by taking part in a press conference before then testifying in front of the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Heck is a single mother of three who is currently receiving the Iowa Earned Income Tax credit, and on this day set about making the case that while she is glad to have it—it sure would be nice to get more of our money.
While Democrats were no doubt tickled by both the media exposure and the perceived effectiveness of this spectacle, the realities surrounding her specific situation, including her own stunning words, expose the utter disregard that liberal Democrats have for all Iowa taxpayers.
The Press Conference
In the press conference Ms. Heck says that she is a single mother of three who works full time and attends college full time at Simpson. She made $33,000 in income last year. Beyond not paying a penny in Federal income tax, she instead received a $5,279 check from the Federal government which combined $2,279 from the Federal E.I.T.C and another $3,000 from the Federal Child Tax Credit. Receiving the Federal E.I.T.C in turn qualified her to receive an additional $160 from the Iowa E.I.T.C. Without getting into all the numbers, after using a portion of her Federal refund to pay the $410 she owed to the state of Iowa, she ended up not only with a zero dollar income tax burden, but instead was actually paid $4,869 by the government.
[wp-youtube-hd-large]7jsMZEhuwbc[/wp-youtube-hd-large]
While so much is wrong with this picture, two things are particularly disturbing. Firstly, instead of being grateful to live in a system that allows her to receive a net profit of $4,869 from the income tax code, she actually had the audacity to sit in front of a microphone and decry the fact that she had to pay any Iowa income taxes at all. And, remarkably unsatisfied with what she has already received, she wants even more money—it is just unbelievable.
Perhaps the biggest slap in the face here is what she admits to spending some of this refund money on. At the 3 minute mark of the video posted above, she plainly states that she is using her Federal “refund†money to help pay for her college tuition, and then proceeds to say that some of this money also goes to match the funds her children manage to save throughout the year.
As a taxpayer who over the last two years alone has sent tens of thousands of dollars to the Federal government and several thousand more to the state of Iowa, I find these details outrageous. Let me be clear, I have no problem paying taxes to help those who are destitute, starving, or un-sheltered. However, paying for a mother of three who decides that she now wants to attend college full time is a far different matter.
Once any American citizen makes the decision to bring three human lives into the world it is solely their own responsibility to provide for those children by any means necessary.  In this case it clearly means working a second job to provide for her family instead of spending our tax dollars to attend college. I ask you this, how many hundreds of thousands of Iowans, especially small business owners, send their money into the government each year and afterwards do not have enough left over to afford schooling, or to match their children’s savings?
The Politics and Implications
Finally we have Sen. Bolkcom, the Iowa personification of this entitlement mentality, and the political and financial implications of this situation. After Ms. Heck’s statement Sen. Bolkcom threatens (at the 7:20 mark) that until the “earned†income tax credit is brought up from its current 7% to either 13% or 20%, that in his mind all tax relief for Iowans is off the table. Realize here what this man is actually saying. That before he entertains any legislation to cut the taxes of Iowans who have been throttled by actually paying high taxes for years—Ms. Heck must first receive an even larger refund.
This attitude and approach are stunning. Putting on display a woman who makes $33,000 a year, who attends college fulltime, and already receives nearly $5,000 in government money through the tax code to justify almost tripling the Iowa E.I.T.C is beyond insulting. This clearly shows all taxpayers in Iowa what little respect some have for the contributions we are making to government coffers every year.
Republicans agreed multiple times last year to increase the percentage of the Iowa E.I.T.C, largely as part of a legislative give and take they hoped would result in other tax proposals gaining passage, but the governor twice vetoed the section raising the credit. In explanation he cited his desire to instead include it in a much larger tax reform bill, though the Senate again last month passed it as a stand alone measure (SF 2161). The price tag of raising the credit to 20% would cost Iowa taxpayers $49.9 million every year after it fully phased-in in 2016. This is no doubt a number that seems tiny to Democrats, but is a big deal when you consider that Chief Justice Cady is likely to again be denied an additional $10 million in funding for our judicial system, which has been underfunded for decades.
Once again I stress that the root of my problem here is not so much the issue itself or the price tag of passing the increase. Above all else, this specific example exposes how we are losing the spirit of defiant self-sufficiency that we once had—and how quickly it is getting replaced with an attitude that instead asks ‘what more can you do for me?’ What is so galling about this is not that the government would offer assistance to people in serious need (they certainly should), but rather how that need is now defined.
While this entire production was likely staged with the sole purpose of raising the guilt level and putting public pressure on Governor Branstad to accept the increase, in reality what it raises is a much larger question:
Has the mentality throughout our state become so collectivist in nature that hard working Iowans are going to be viewed as “heartless†for not wanting to pay adults to go to college and be able to match their children’s piggy bank contributions?
If the answer is yes than Conservatives and Libertarians have a lot more work to do…and Iowans will have a lot more taxes to pay in the future.
by | Jan 16, 2012
The gaveling in of the Iowa Legislature’s 84th General Assembly last week signaled an end to the 2012 Presidential Caucus season and the return of a more local political focus for Iowans.
There is no doubt that much of the session’s oxygen will be sucked up by the major issues that failed to produce any legislation following last year’s battles. These issues include reforming the tax code, mental health services, and education, as well as another round of sparring over Iowa setting up a health insurance exchange to work in conjunction with Obama Care.
While these will grab a majority of the headlines, and a good share of our attention here at The Conservative Reader: Iowa, there have already been a number of very interesting bills introduced that we will also be following.
As of now the bills and issues outside “the big 4†that we have flagged to watch closely are as follows: Term limits, random drug testing for recipients 84th of certain state benefits, banning red light and speed cameras, and the fate of nuclear power in Iowa.
After being deluged for so many months with candidates and their ever changing poll numbers, it is easy to forget that in many ways the caucus season is an imperfect method for measuring Iowa’s current ideological perspective. Removing the factors attached to individual candidates such as “likeability†and “electabilityâ€, and instead gauging the debate and the public reaction of Iowans to more hyper-local issues is a far more telling indicator of where we stand. Ironically these debates and their results likely will tip our hand as to which Presidential candidate will be awarded our 6 electoral votes in November.
In the following weeks stay tuned for investigations, updates, analysis, and opinions on the major issues being debated at the State House. As mentioned earlier, while we will not ignore the most publicized topics of debate this session, a number of bills that will exist in the shadows of the major priorities are just as important.
Though we will be closely watching with an appropriate level of skepticism, we wish all those involved with the 84th General Assembly well in their efforts to make improvements for all Iowans. When we feel they have achieved improvement—we will trumpet it. When we feel they have caused damage to our way of life—they will be called to account.
On with Democracy…
Page 11 of 13« First«...910111213»
After easily defeating a primary challenger in June, Iowa House member Kevin Koester was kind enough to sit down with The Conservative Reader: Iowa to discuss his upcoming general election in November, as well as the many issues he will be dealing with should he earn a third term in the Iowa Legislature.
