Search Results for ‘cigarette tax’
State Representative Dawn Pettengill left the Democratic caucus for the Republican caucus today. The Register has the story from Chris Rants’s press conference, which just happened:
The change cuts the Democratic majority in the House to 53 seats and gives minority Republicans 47 seats. It takes 51 votes to pass legislation.
Pettengill had battled publicly with the House Democratic caucus this year over issues such as labor union fees and the cigarette tax increase. She had indicated publicly she might consider leaving the caucus, although she had suggested she was more likely to become an independent.
“The House Democratic leadership pursued an agenda which veered far from the principles for which my constituents and I stand,” she said in a statement. “My decision gives me the best opportunity to represent the values of my constituents.”
This is going to make progressives — particularly the ones I know who knocked doors for her during the last campaign — pretty unhappy. Pettengill is known for her emotional outbursts, and my sense is that she perceives her district to be more conservative than it actually is.
I posted a while back about why I didn’t think Pettengill was going to defect. It turns out I was wrong. This kind of transition, from the majority to the minority (particularly when it looks like the Republicans will likely remain in the minority through next campaign cycle) is surprising, but Pettengill planted the seed for a defection months ago.
As an aside, this comes as a double-disappointment for many progressives, who were hoping that Rants planned to announce his resignation today. Rumors that he will resign have been circulating for months, and there is no word yet on whether Pettengill’s switch will influence his decision on that one way or the other.
April 30th, 2007
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
March 31st, 2007
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
October 2nd, 2006
Well, we didn’t announce this two weeks ago as perhaps we should’ve, but Grinnell has been on Spring Break since then, and it has meant that our coverage is a little less than usual. (And, when I say “usual,” I’m basing it on our one week of good coverage.)
Still, here are some stories we’ll be watching as more of us get back to campus in the next day or two:
Our coverage will get better again soon, we promise.
March 31st, 2006
Today the Register reports that (surprise surprise) Iowa House Republicans neglected to pass an education bill that would increase teacher salaries or funding for preschools. Republican House Speaker Rants:
“We have a revenue estimate that we have to abide by, by law,” he added. “I wish we had more to give, but that’s the amount of money we have available to spend.”
Can you blame them? Allocating tight funds sure is hard, ain’t it? Sure we all want teacher salary increases, but where will the money come from? Certainly not a cigarette tax.
Democrats failed to get a cigarette tax increase approved Wednesday in the Iowa House.
Rants, a Sioux City Republican, is against a tobacco tax increase and says the revenue it would raise would set the budget up for trouble in the future as cigarette sales declined.
Would revenue really fall significantly from a tax? New Yorkers pay 7.50 for a pack of cigarettes and yet the percentage of smokers is just under the national average. What gives?
Sure, there’s evidence that cigarette tax increases lower smoking, but the decline in use is most significant among children. And with ballooning state medical costs (the proposed tax was designed to pay for health care in the first place), reducing smoking can save money in the long term by cutting out a major source of health care woes- cigarettes.
Maybe Iowa Republicans should put that in their pipe and smoke it.
March 16th, 2006
The Register reports that fourteen Republicans have joined Democrats in the call for debate on a cigarette tax increase (proposed by Vilsack) that would fund health care.
It still seems unlikely that they’ll get their way, though:
House Speaker Christopher Rants, a Republican from Sioux City, is against the tax increase and is seen by many as standing in the way of a debate in the House.
On the letter sent to Rants in favor of debate, Republican Walt Tomenga pointed out:
“I don’t think it will have much impact,” he said. “Neither party wants a vote on this bill because they don’t to run with the tag of raising taxes.”
March 14th, 2006
Tim Higgins at the Register penned a story implying that House Speaker Christopher Rants (R) may be accepting favors from lobbyists in exchange for pushing their legislative agenda:
As state lawmakers prepare to debate the future of the Iowa Lottery’s slot machine-like games, the Iowa House Speaker and a handful of other legislators went on a golf trip to Myrtle Beach with a casino lobbyist this past weekend.
The trip included four lawmakers, friends and lobbyist Kimberly Haus, who works on the behalf of Ameristar Casinos and other companies, said House Speaker Christopher Rants, a Republican from Sioux City, today.
And supporters of the TouchPlay systems feel that “casinos are their biggest advisories in this debate.” Yeah, he meant adversaries, but that doesn’t change the power of the allegations.
Rants, of course, denies any impropriety unequivocally and claims that everyone “paid their own way.”
It’s just coincidence that the lobbyist, Kimberly Haus, also works for Phillip Morris, who is helped by Rants’s strong position against raising cigarette taxes.
March 13th, 2006
