Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

Term Limits In Iowa: A Policy Proposal

Term Limits In Iowa: A Policy Proposal

Cronstal 1st yearIOne of my favorite self-coined terms is “legi-saurs”.  As you may guess it refers to politicians at all levels of government who get elected–and then never go away.

Like many on the right I am convinced this semi-permanent presence in the halls of power is a destructive one in politics.  These careers start innocently enough.  The member actually has a job in the private sector, lives as a normal citizen, and regardless of ideology brings fresh ideas and solutions to the table.  But in most cases, over time, they eventually detach from the economy by not working  outside the Capitol, they develop grudges against their colleages, their ideas and thinking become stale, and they learn to play the legislative process like a game.

Here in Iowa

This happens at all levels in both Parties and unsurprisingly Iowa is not immune.  Our current six Federal representatives have an average of 19 1/2 years in office, with both our Senators having 39 years each.  While on average the Iowa Legislature isn’t as bad, looking through our current Senate reveals several examples of a certain timeless creature…legi-saurs.  For whatever reason this phenomenon in Iowa is more popular among Democrats, with the longest serving Republicans being elected in 1993 (Hubert Houser and Sandy Greiner).  This doesn’t hold a candle to the imperial reign of the 5 longest serving Iowa Democrats–one of which who has been serving for 40 years.  Here’s the list:

  • Bob Dvorsky – since 1987
  • Jack Hatch – since 1985 (out of office 93′ to 01′)
  • Mike Gronstal – since 1983
  • Dennis Black – since 1983
  • Wally Horn – since 1973!

I’m not going to go through all the arguments and counter-arguments for term limits here– I think we all know them (for=incumbency offers name ID, party infrastructure, media coverage, a donor base, special interest money etc. and against=”we have term limits…they are called elections”).  I will say however that the best question to ask someone who opposes term limits is, “So you support removing them for Presidency I assume?”–I’ve yet to hear anybody ever answer “yes”.

A Proposal

Below is a proposal released last week and co-written by both a current Republican and a Democrat serving in the U.S. House.  It is meant to be applied at the Federal level, but it would essentially work the same here in Iowa.  It is superbly well thought out, simple in nature, plainly written, makes the case for why term limits are needed, and offers a realistic way to make it happen.

I vote Yes!

—————————————————————————————————————

Finally, A Bi-Partisan Solution on Term Limits

Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) written with Congressman Beto O’Roarke (D-TX)

Many in our country and in the districts we represent feel that Congress is out of touch and that members are more focused on re-election than on providing real solutions to our nation’s biggest challenges. We hear from constituents all the time that there is a lack of urgency and focus when it comes to solving our country’s toughest issues like tackling the deficit and putting policies in place that will lead to economic growth.

The two of us, freshman members from different parties with divergent views on many issues, have come together because we believe a healthy debate is warranted on how we best serve the American people and whether, in a time of enormous powers of incumbency and multi-million dollar campaigns for Congress, we can be better public servants and curb the corrupting influence of money and power by limiting a member’s term in office.

Public opinion in favor of term limits for members of Congress is unquestionable. A Gallup poll released this past January reflects the same trend seen year after year from countless reputable research firms. Overall, 75 percent of American adults responding to the survey were in favor of implementing term limits and the support is unanimous across party lines.

That support stands in stark contrast to the overall approval rating of Congress, which hovers somewhere around 15 percent. Despite the unpopularity of Congress as a whole, sitting members still win re-election about 90 percent of the time due to the overwhelming benefits of incumbency. A system that rewards poor performance with job security is clearly in need of a shake-up. Congressional term limits could be the change needed to steer the institution back in the right direction.

Our proposal is a simple constitutional amendment. It does not prescribe the number of terms a member can serve; rather, it gives Congress the constitutional authority to pass and implement term limits. The reason for this structure is that by taking away the details from the amendment process, the likelihood of passage increases. We believe that even members who are philosophically opposed to term limits would support a constitutional amendment providing the legislative branch with the ability to debate and vote on the issue.

Despite widespread popularity, congressional term limits are incredibly difficult to implement because doing so requires a constitutional amendment with two-thirds of both chambers as well as ratification by three-fourths of America’s state legislatures. Having super majorities agree on the details of term limits, including the exact number of terms, is nearly impossible. Since 1995, there have been several attempts to move specific term limits amendments, but all have ended right where they began by being voted down in the House.

Previous term limit efforts have also failed because the only people who can begin the process to impose term limits are those who will be most affected – incumbent members of Congress. By voting in favor of, or even publicly supporting a term limits amendment, a member of Congress can be exposed to charges of hypocrisy or disingenuousness if they don’t also voluntarily limit their term of service. This has a chilling effect on those who would otherwise support term limit efforts.

Congress owes the American people action on term limits, including a new approach that actually stands a chance of becoming law. Our approach provides the flexibility needed to enact term limit laws by a simple majority and to allow future generations to decide the term limit law that works best for them through the regular legislative process.

For far too long, Congress has failed to give the people what they clearly want. We should pass this amendment and finally put that power in their hands.

Jim Bridenstine represents the First District of Oklahoma

 

2013 Legislative Session Delivering Little Hope for Conservatives So Far

2013 Legislative Session Delivering Little Hope for Conservatives So Far

Iowa HouseQuestion: What has happened so far at the Statehouse this session?

Answer: Mostly a whole lot of nothing.

With potentially as little as three weeks left before they gavel out this has been one of the most uneventful sessions since I began following them closely.  There could still be some fireworks in store as the larger ticket items get discussed, but as it stands now nearly everything Governor Branstad has signed into law has been with near unanimous consent from both Parties.  In fact, of the 36 bills he has signed so far most have been technical or clerical items passed with no dissent—and all but a couple have had no more than 3 no votes between the two chambers (notable exceptions being SF 184 and HF 160).

Conservatives Left with Little to Cheer About

The fact that divided government is not producing sweeping changes is hardly surprising, but getting no movement whatsoever on traditionally non-entrenched ideological issues is disheartening.  For me personally these disappointments include the first funnel costing any chance of banning Automated Traffic Enforcement and the second funnel claiming the Voter ID bill.  Both these issues have a clear majority of public support (Voter ID routinely gets well over 70% in public polls), and despite this couldn’t even receive the dignity of a vote.

Additionally, the Education Reform effort (yes, even the version the Republican House passed with no inter-Party dissent) is a “solution” few true Conservatives can embrace.  Firstly, it is dumping $200 million more dollars into a system that already has received a 35.4% funding increase since 2002—with no discernible benefit in most districts.  And secondly, the kind of actionable teacher evaluation, similar to what exists in the private sector, is nowhere to be found.  Instead, in my view, what this reform offers is a largely a bunch of feel good jargon about “ladders”, “career pathways”, “mentors”, and “master teachers”—now does that sound like a recipe for fixing a failing school?

In some way this issue has been absurdly overcomplicated, how about teachers just teach kids the information in their textbooks like miraculously you were able to do in the 1990’s and we’ll call it even.  In fact, prove you can do so and we will give you a nice raise…you know the way it has worked for all the rest of us in the private sector since our birth.

While it is true that many strong home schooling amendments got passed by the House, A) the big ones won’t make it to the Governor’s desk, and B) even if they did it still wouldn’t make this effort worthwhile.  And while there are a few bright spots (HF 625 which expands STO’s), there was no movement of Sen. Zaun’s proposal last session to give parents true schools choice, nor was there any effort made to ensure we have strict 3rd grade retention for reading proficiency.

Tax Reform the Big Prize…But Likely to Elude Again

Just like last session, there was talk by both sides at the beginning that something needed to get done here, but the writing is on the wall that it won’t.

Largely this is because the players and the policies they are pushing for are essentially unchanged from last year.  Additionally I am starting to think that Sen. Gronstal knows he controls only one branch—but perhaps has the trump card in this standoff.

The way I have started to look at this is to see the similarities between this situation and the fiscal cliff scenario faced by Republicans on the Federal level at the end of last year.  If you recall, Republicans were forced into caving because the specific position they were in—if no deal was struck taxes on everyone in the country would go up on January 1st.  Similarly, here in Iowa if nothing gets done our tax rates will continue to climb—a reality that would surely bother Republicans more than Democrats.  Not only does this give Gronstal more leverage in cutting a deal to avoid the tax hikes, if he can manage to stave off a deal until rates are raised he is in the position of deciding then who “deserves” tax cuts.  As frustrating as this tactic is for Republicans, as long as high taxes don’t cost Democrats their majority it is truly brilliant politics.

The Truth As I see It 

I would love to be able to say everything is looking up here in Iowa and nationwide, but the evidence disagrees.  Coming off a brutal performance last November when Mitt Romney was unable to defeat a president with a terrible record and Republicans failed to take the Iowa Senate, we are now seeing the results.  This legislative session is almost a mirror copy of the last and the chances of anything passing at all are slim–and unfortunately the chances of passing any significant Conservative policy is hopeless.  Simply put, at the moment the landscape is virtually barren when it comes to potential political victories.

Elections indeed have consequences–and Conservatives are feeling them now.  We must do better as a Party going forward–2014 awaits and brings another chance to make a profound and positive legislative impact.

 

 

 

Iowa Senate Races: A Closer Look At The Leaners (SD 8)

Iowa Senate Races: A Closer Look At The Leaners (SD 8)

(For a complete overview of the Iowa Senate races click here)

The Candidates

Mike Gronstal (D) vs.  Al Ringgenberg (R)

Mike Gronstal is the longtime incumbent, and Al Riggenberg is a retired Air Force Colonel and former prosecutor.

The District

Senate District 8 is on the Southwestern border of Iowa and is essentially made up of the city of Council Bluffs.  Incumbent Mike Gronstal was first elected to the Iowa House in 1982.  After serving one term there he moved up to the Senate in 1986, and has been the Democratic Leader in that body for the last 15 years.  In short, he is the definition of an entrenched Democrat legis-saur (legislator+dinosaur).  The registered voter breakdown for SD 8 is (D-10,606) (R-10,020) (NP-10,720), leaving a D+586 advantage.

The Race

At the beginning of campaign season Republicans rightfully believed this year was the best shot they have had to unseat their biggest political enemy.  What has transpired since is nothing short of depressing for the Iowa GOP, and the word I hear from insiders is the chances of flipping this seat are now very low.  The reasons for the initial Republican optimism were (1) the district was almost dead even, with Independents sure to be ruffled up by Gronstal’s numerous high-profile legislative blockades, and (2) they managed to field a great candidate on paper in retired Colonel Al Ringgenberg.

To this point in the campaign, for whatever reason, Ringgenberg has failed to gain much traction.  Perhaps more importantly he has failed to generate the kind of money it would take to compete with Gronstal’s massive war-chest.  No matter how much Ringgenberg raised he was not going to be in the ballpark of Gronstal’s unbelievable $547,158.00, but there is no getting around his disappointing cash on hand number of $6,987.00 (which includes a $2,000 loan to himself).

There is still plenty of time, but the Ringgenberg campaign really needs to catch fire and take the fight to Gronstal.  If he is unable to bank some more money soon he will have a difficult time doing so with $7,000 (as of July 19th).  At the moment I unfortunately have this seat leaning strongly Democrat.  You will see by following the link below that Gronstal is yet another Iowa Democrat who has chosen to disclose absolutely nothing on where he stands on current issues or his future political goals on his website. This practice is especially shameful for a longtime Majority leader who is personally responsible for blocking Iowans from having a voice on countless issues (including tax reform and gay marriage).

Further Information

Al Ringgenberg – ColonelAl.com

Mike Gronstal – MikeGronstal.com

 

 

The 5 Legislative Races That Will Determine Iowa’s Political Future

The 5 Legislative Races That Will Determine Iowa’s Political Future

While the direction of the Country will be decided at the top of the ballot this November, the epic struggle for control of Iowa’s political landscape will be decided down ballot.

Of all the races taking place across the state, the long blocked agenda of Iowa Republicans is only two Senate seat gains away from being able to be implemented.  Since the Iowa House is in no danger of flipping—the fate of this agenda lies in the Iowa Senate’s 26 open seats.

While anything can happen in these legislative races between now and November, this following analysis reflects where they stand today.  Here is how we get from the 26 Senate seats up for grabs down to the 5 that will determine control of that chamber—and hence political control of Iowa for the next two years.

First things first: From 50 to 26 to 22

From 50 to 26— There are 50 seats in the Senate and all even numbered districts are on the ballot this year plus SD 49, which holds a race for a two year term before going back on the ballot in 2014.  This means that there will be 26 seats in play, with the Democrats starting with an advantage due to having 13 of the hold over seats to the Republicans 11.

From 26 to 22— Of the 26 races, Republicans have fielded a candidate in all of them while the Democrats have let four seats go unchallenged (SD 2, SD 10, SD 12, and SD 20).  This takes us from 26 possible races to 22 that will actually take place.

From 22 to 13— Of these 22 races, nine heavily favor* one party or the other.  Four favor the Republican candidate (SD 40, SD 28, SD 6, and SD 4); while 5 favor the Democrat candidate (SD 50, SD 34, SD 32, SD 18, and SD 16).

*Note: This analysis is largely based on the past history of communities making up the districts, registered voter advantages, and money raised and on hand for each candidate.  In all likely and leaner districts there are more than enough registered Independents to technically make up R and D registration advantages.

The Battle Field

From 13 to 5— This leaves 13 races left which will be heavily contested and which will draw the attention of, and funds from, the state political parties.  Of these, I see five leaning Republican and 3 leaning Democrat– for Republicans they are SD 46, SD 38, SD 24, SD 22, and SD 14, and for Democrats they are SD 44, SD 42, and SD 8.

Of note here is that, for the time being, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is given SD 8 over Al Ringgenberg.  Also, the best shot for Republicans in these Democrat leaners are SD 42 and SD 8, while Democrats look to have the best chance in SD 46 and SD 38.

The Final 5

The remaining 5 races can truly go one way or the other and are absolutely critical for control of the Iowa Senate.  They are SD 49, SD 48, SD 36, SD 30, and SD 26.

Here is a recap of how we got there:

                                                                    Republicans          Democrats

                        Hold Over Seats                        11                         13         

                        Uncontested                               4                           0  

                         Likely R or D                             4                           5  

                         Lean R or D                               5                           3                                                     

                                                              ——————————————                                                              

                                                                           24                         21

Going Forward

As you can see from above, assuming my “likely” and “lean” numbers hold true, Republicans are in great shape to take the Senate as they only need to win 1 of the “final 5” races to tie and only 2 of the 5 to gain outright control.  Conversely, Democrats would have to win 4 of the “final 5” for a tie and would need a clean sweep to retain control.

Two interesting facts here are that all the big action is in Eastern Iowa, which is home to all 5 of these decisive races, and that 4 of the 5 are contained in U.S Congressional District 1.  This is further good news for Republicans as Ben Lange is a great candidate who seems to be gaining steam against a sputtering Bruce Braley.

In the coming weeks The Conservative Reader: Iowa will be featuring interviews with Republican candidates from across the state.  Additionally, we will be taking in-depth looks at the 8 races which will be highly contested and the 5 that will be utterly critical for taking the Iowa Senate.

The voters in these 13 districts will ultimately answer the questions of how much property tax relief we receive, what reforms are made to our declining education system, and whether Iowa will set up health insurance exchanges for Obamacare.  One thing I have no question about is that these districts are where the battle for ideological control of Iowa will be won or lost.

 

 

 

2012 Legislative Session Ends Minus Tax Deal: Analysis and Governor’s Statement

2012 Legislative Session Ends Minus Tax Deal: Analysis and Governor’s Statement

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.

    Log in