by | Feb 17, 2010
Evidently anticipating a challenging public presence (although as of 5:10 PM there are only about 100 people in the Iowa House galleries), Speaker Murphy provided the following list of rules:
- Persons signing up to testify will be permitted on the House floor during a public hearing.
- To testify, members of the public will be required to enter the House chamber through the main entrance off the rotunda and will be required to sign-in.
- Testifiers on the House floor during a public hearing are restricted to the area in the rear of the chamber and may not sit at legislators’ desks or clerks’ desks.
- Testimony will be received at microphones located in the rear of the House chamber.
- Each legislator may bring no more than one guest onto the House floor during a public hearing. While on the House floor, the guest must be accompanied by the host legislator at all times.
- Members of the public who wish to observe the public hearing but not testify must observe from one of the galleries.
- Persons attending a public hearing on the House floor or in the House galleries must respect the rules of the House and must refrain from disruptive behavior.
Further explanation at the start by Representative Geri Huser (D-District 42) made it clear that any disruption may impact the opportunity for future public forms to be held in the House chamber.
I was fortunate to be the one guest of Representative Erik Helland (R-District 69). I’m enjoying a seat between both Chris Hagenow (R-District 59) and Erik.
by Art Smith | Apr 14, 2009
Every time Democrats tell us they are going to debate House File 807/Senate File 468, which repeals Iowa’s Income Tax deduction on Federal Income Tax (also referred to as putting a “Tax on a Tax”), the public shows up to convey their opposition and watch the proceedings, only to have them postpone the debate to another day.
Why?
Why, when Grand-stall and Smurphy tell us that they have the votes to pass the legislation, do they delay getting the work done?
Possible answers:
- They don’t have the votes.
- They are afraid that the presence of actual voters might cause some Democrats to think twice about how they will vote.
- They are afraid that the presence of actual voters might cause Governor Culver to think twice about whether he will sign the bill.
- They are afraid they might be forced to say something that is blatantly stupid or a lie in order to make their case stronger. Like the bill is revenue neutral (lie) or that lower income Iowans will benefit (lie) or that only rich people will be negatively impacted (stupid).
- Or they are just plain afraid of a headline that might read “Iowa Democrats Lead Government Rebellion Against Taxpayers”. I kind of like that one… I hope I don’t get to use.
I suspect we will see a quiet attempt to slip this bill through once they think no one is looking. We must, all Iowan taxpayers, keep our eyes and ears open in the coming days to ensure we are there when the votes are cast… the politicians must not be allowed to sneak this through without public scrutiny.
Don’t let them raise your taxes.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I really don’t get this one when I look at face value. Who benefits? What is the problem that this solves? Don’t be fooled, it’s not about making life better for those with lower incomes… it’s about increasing revenue. Even with a “revenue neutral” model for 2010 and 2011, there is a dramatic increase in revenue in 2012 and later.
And if this does pass, two things need to happen:
- Get Democrats out of office.
- Make Republicans PROMISE to fix it when they have control.
If we don’t hold Republicans’ feet to the fire, it will be too easy even for them to accept the inflated revenue and spend it on something. This is not intended as a criticism of Republicans (I count myself in their number), but of human nature.
No matter who is in office, you have to hold them accountable.
by Art Smith | Apr 2, 2009
The political fallout continues for Democrats as they try to fend off criticism for Pat Murphy’s behavior Tuesday evening. A letter to the editor in this morning’s Des Moines register lays it out pretty succinctly: characterizing the behavior of the public at Tuesday night’s public meeting prior to being expelled as anything more than brief expressions of disapproval or aproval (granting the first speaker deserved to be treated better) is spurious at best. And Kiernan’s accusations that the public’s actions were orchestrated by Republican leaders is an outright lie; I was there during the preparatory time and there was nothing more than providing people with shirt and buttons… no direction to behave in any way.
If you watched KCCI news on Tuesday night (or the story on the web site), you briefly would have seen my ugly mug. A number of people have mentioned they noticed and were surprised at what happened. One friend’s Facebook Wall comment: “Way to stand up to the man!”.
Democrats have backed up the bus and skipped debating HF 807 either today (Thursday) or Friday it seems. Kent Sorenson twittered us last night that majority leaders were working on an amendment that would ensure enough votes would be garnered to get the bill passed. They are still working with the Governor to ensure they don’t get surprised by him (like they did on the Voter Irrelvancy Act that lost steam last month).
Iowa Independent had an interesting piece on the use of Twitter during the proceedings. I was monitoring Kent Sorenson and the Senate Republican Caucus tweets, while I was commenting via Twitter myself. I was also exchanging messages via email with one of the House members. If you were following my tweets, you’ll know that my cell battery died shortly after the last speaker finished.
So here’s my two cents worth: One might think that Democrats would wise up and give up on this foolish venture and let it lie for now with the economy the way it is. Passing this bill, which is just another case of a solution in desperate need of a problem (if you take it at face value), will just make a large portion of the Iowa voters angry… winning for Democrats on this bill may be worse than losing because they will probably lose over this. A bold move at this point would be to stand up and say “We’ve heard Iowans and we get it: we will work on other methods to help lower income Iowans.”. Democrats won’t get what they want, but then again they are less likely to lose seats in 2010. And if they think that getting this in during the 2009 session has a better chance of being forgotten by November 2010 than if they pushed it through in the 2010 session, that’s a gamble for them. This is something that they would be better to find smaller increments to achieve over a longer period.
If their only goal was this bill, that might work. The bad news is, this bill IS one of those small increments. If you think this HF 807 is a big deal, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
Lastly, one of the speakers Tuesday night, Mark Grittmann, got in contact with me and we’ve shared emails and a phone call back and forth over the past couple of days. He was kind enough to share the text of his speech at the hearing, which one needs to understand is very much tongue-in-cheek, and conveys eloquently the point I made above:
Good evening and thank you for listening to the people of Iowa. I’m Mark Grittmann. I’m not a lobbyist and I’m not representing any special interest group. I’m just a hard-working American taxpayer.
I’ve heard the Elimination of Federal Tax deductibility may cause up to a $600 Million tax increase and I’m all for it. And those of you supporting this, say this would be good for the State of Iowa. So if a $600 million tax increase is good for Iowa, then I think you should do more, so wouldn’t a $1.2 Billion tax increase be even better?
Some have foolishly argued against it. Can you believe it?
- Some say the 20% increase in State spending over the last 2 years should be reversed.
- Some say this Bill is revenue neutral. But if that is true, and it doesn’t change anything, then why do it?
- Some say that Government, like family households, should live within their means and not let spending get out of control.
- Some say a tax increase during a Global Financial Crisis and Recession is the worst thing for the economy, and that tax increases would hurt employers, causing a loss of jobs and people would leave Iowa to find work in other States.
- Some say the facts about this Bill as to its true impact on taxes isn’t known or has not been fully disclosed, so how can this Bill even be debated yet? One news report showed that 40% of the individuals receiving a tax increase make less than $40,000 per year. And 69% of the individuals receiving a tax increase make less than $70,000 per year.
- Some say that in November 2010, voters will remember the legislators who raised their taxes by 20%.
And that’s why I think this $600 million tax increase is good for Iowa. It will bring new and improved, and more fiscally responsible Legislators to the State of Iowa in November 2010.
Thank you for listening, and good night.
That gives me an idea. We should call this “The Legislative Replacement Act of 2009/2010”.
The news links herein are to Des Moines Register and Iowa Independent.
by Art Smith | Apr 1, 2009
 |
|
Empty Gallery
|
Pat Murphy will probably say he was well within his rights to clear the gallery at tonight’s Public Hearing on House File 807, the bill to repeal the deduction of Federal Income Tax from Iowa Income Tax.
But he was so wrong.
The galleries were filled with people who opposed the bill. It is interesting that Democrats could not raise up any more than a handful of speakers to support the bill, none to sit in the gallery who support the bill. And those who spoke in favor were the expected litany of social services and union leaders who would either benefit directly from the bill or are beholden to Democrats. One speaker in favor, it was observed, sounded distinctly as if he did not even believe what he was saying.
It’s intriguing to see people mischaracterize the events in the House this evening. I was there. The very first speaker was roundly booed, and I’ll admit that was inappropriate. The public was warned. After that, no other speaker in favor of the bill received much more than a low murmur of opposition, and that was not worth talking about.
The galleries were full of people who could not contain, however, their enthusiasm and support for the comments of those who actually made sense, spoke for Iowans and opposed the bill. What Pat Murphy (who by the way was not visible in the chamber except when he threw the public out) was facing was an uprising of Iowans who have finally had it with the continued outrageous spending and tax increases being sugar coated as a tax reduction.
Ed Failor Jr., President of Iowans For Tax Relief, was one of many who hit the target on this issue: it will tell our graduating college seniors that there is no room for them or their dreams. This bill will impact them coming out of school into the work force (those making under $40,000 will be negatively impacted) and will impact their dreams to be successful. They will be a target.
Many small business owners got up to speak in opposition to the bill. We already know that small businesses, who employ the majority of Iowans, are at significant risk in the current economy. And this bill will most dramatically impact their tax burden. They will pay more. Several speakers had taken the time to ask their tax preparers to calculate the impact of the bill on their taxes. One man explained that he would see a 50% increase in his State tax obligation.
Others spoke very eloquently about the absurdity of the bill. I think there were perhaps 5 or 6 who spoke in favor, and 40 or so against it.
The straw that broke Murphy’s back was the applause after college student Greg Baker spoke.  Busloads of students from Ames and Iowa City came. It was encouraging to so many students there who share our conservative values. I just hope they don’t all decide to move out of state after this session is over.
And once the crowd found out they were being ejected, essentially turning the “public” hearing into a private one, that’s when the shouting and anger showed. People were escorted out, and still in an orderly fashion, but not without getting a few messages in. The one that rings the loudest is:
“This is the people’s house, but not any longer!”
A later speaker, Ted Morgan, said:
“I’ve never been in a house where the tenants evicted the landlords.”
Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn put it well:
“Never have I seen such a gross display of arrogance and disdain for Iowa taxpayers. The Iowa House is supposed to serve as the people’s house, the house where great ideas are debated and discussed.”
Earlier in the day, Rep. Paul Shomshor, D-Council Bluffs and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was quoted as saying:
“We think eliminating federal deductibility is helpful for families and middle-class taxpayers,” said Rep. Paul Shomshor, D-Council Bluffs and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
I don’t know how an intelligent person can get away with making a statement like that. Either arrogant or stupid, either way it seems obvious Iowa has made a huge mistake electing Democrats into office.
Iowans are starting to see the truth; Murphy may have single-handedly lit a fire he won’t be able to contain.
by Art Smith | Jan 11, 2009
Monday January 12 will be the opening session of the 2009 General Assembly. This year’s session timetable is here. As was the case the pass two years, both the House and the Senate have Democratic majorities.
We urge you, as the session progresses, to take the time to communicate with your elected representatives. Go to this link, and find your representative’s name, click on it, and you’ll get phone numbers, email addresses, information about committee assignments and links to bill sponsorships. I will be in contact with Peter Cownie and Pat Ward, the House and Senate members who represent me here in West Des Moines.
I exchanged emails with Peter last week. This is his freshman years in the Statehouse, and he managed to get assigned to Appropriations, Economic Growth, Educatio nand Labor committees, and on Appropriations, he is the ranking member of the Economic Development subcommittee. He told me that this year is pretty much all about the Budget.
Which leads me to Friday Night’s Iowa Press on IPTV. Senator Mike Gronstal (D-Senate Majority Leader from Council Bluffs) and Representative Pat Murphy (D-Speaker of the House from Dubuque) were grilled by Dean Borg (the host), David Yepsen from the Des Moines Register, and Mike Glover from the Associated Press.
The message from Gronstal and Murphy was the same one that Peter heard… it’s about the budget. We’ve already seen Governor Culver make two swipes at state spending to try and get the budget aligned with expected revenues. Gronstal started responding to the budget question from Glover by saying that committees will be working hard on cutting expenses, and then proceeded to hit the first shortsighted decision which is the canceling of plans for a new state office building. Gronstal said: “we need a new state office building, Wallace needs to be replaced but not today.” On the one hand, if we don’t have the money, we don’t have the money… but on the other hand the cost of the new building, which “we need” will jump up every year we wait. On the third hand, we could reduce the size of government and eliminate the need for the Wallace Building altogether, but that’s not likely to happen. This is one project that needs more careful review in my opinion.
As they discussed ideas such as leasing the Lottery (an idea that’s been floated around lately) and allowing open positions in government to stay vacant, it became clear that Gronstal wasn’t quite prepared to express a confident opinion about anything yet… he said he wasn’t going to reject any idea until looking at the details. Glover asked about what has been at the heart of the Lottery question for decades, which is the possibility that leasing it to private interests could quickly lead to expanded gambling in Iowa (as if any more expansion is going to really matter any longer), which Gronstal rejected out of hand. Yepsen went on the offensive, asking about campaign contributions from gambling interests, and Gronstal didn’t like it:
Yepsen: The gambling industry makes campaign contributions to state legislators. How much does that have to do with this decision? If the gambling industry wants to buy the lottery from you and you’re getting thousands of dollars in campaign donations doesn’t it get sold?
Gronstal: No, David, I don’t think that’s true at all. Look, I think it’s an interesting idea, it’s one worth considering. If we go through that process we very well may decide, no, it doesn’t make sense. But why reject the idea of considering it? I think that’s fairly silly to reject even considering an idea. I’m actually really surprised at your critical questions. The legislature has often advocated considering privatization.
Yepsen: We always ask critical questions, Senator.
Gronstal: But the idea of privatization shouldn’t be rejected out of hand.
Yepson then took the opportunity to jump to a question that should be bugging all of us: AFSCME, the state workers union, is asking for a 5% pay raise for workers next year, and another 5% the year after that. While people in the private sector are losing their jobs, not getting raises even close to 5%, and the key question of how every state worker makes 30% more than the average citizen. Gronstal made one smart-mouthed response about CEOs (that was just inappropriate), and then said he wouldn’t comment on it because of the fact that the state is actively engaged in negotiations, and it’s the Governor’s job, not the General Assembly. Yepsen kept the heat up, Murphy tried defending the salaries by talking about what some of the state workers do (covering maybe 5% of those workers… don’t get me wrong, I want police and fire protection paid well, but we’re talking about a lot of overpaid workers).
Bottom line on the union is that we won’t get any serious discussion about this from Democratic leaders because they’ll lick the union bosses’ shoes just to ensure they continue to have votes in 2010. And we’ll be left holding the check.
There was a good conversation about the use of the state’s Rainy Day Fund and the general Cash Reserve. It was good to hear that the leaders would consider usnig the RDF if necessary to ensure Iowans that are struggling from the weather and economic disasters of 2008 are helped appropriately… I agree that the Cash Reserve should be left alone as that is needed to ensure that we don’t need to borrow money if revenue shortfalls start to impact cash flows.
Also good conversation around the numerous proposals for local option sales taxes and the possibility of introducing flexibility for local governments to collect fees to offset property taxes. Gronstal actually said something I can strongly agree with: property taxes are too high. The trouble is, some fees are just another property tax, so I’m not exactly keen on that. Local option sales taxes are fine, and all the state is doing is allowing the local governments to decide to impose them… the state doesn’t pay or benefit from that EXCEPT that the pressure on the state to help out is reduced.
They also discussed the proposal to raise the gas tax by a nickel to help create jobs and improve the existing transportation infrastructure. I’m a bit torn… I like the fact that it helps keep people employed, but I hope we don’t end up wasting money on unnecessary projects.
They also hit on teacher pay, and corrections facility needs. The most revealing statement of the evening came next, however. Yepsen asked if Gay Marriage would be debated this year. Both politicians flatly said “No.”, with Murphy adding that they were going to “let the courts make that decision”. It shouldn’t amaze me that these guys are clearly incapable of true leadership, but I suppose when you know you lack both a credible position and will lose power if you do the right thing, having the Iowa Supreme Court there to bail you out is certainly a reasonable option.
Gronstal ended by saying this year is about the Budget and Disaster Recovery. I wonder whether we’ll ever recover from the 2009 session?
