Dawn Pettengill Defects to House Republican Caucus

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.

20 comments April 30th, 2007

News Roundup

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:

• The “tax on coolness” (Vilsack’s cigarette tax increase) is stalled. Everybody but me seemed to like the idea, but it turns out that house Republicans agree with me that regressive taxes are bad and that we can find other ways to finance a solid health care system that everyone has access to. Or maybe they have different reasons…
• Jim Nussle is under investigation by the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. The allegations have something to do with not reporting funds from Nussle’s congressional campaign account that were spent on his gubernatorial bid. Whether or not these are really terrible charges, the current political climate could mean that any proof of wrongdoing — even on a really small scale — will devastate him. (The party also blogged about this.)
• Iowans protest the terrible right-wing immigration bill in Washington and, more notably, in Marshalltown. The Marshalltown protest included 80 middle and high school students, which seems really cool. Less cool: “[Marshalltown Police Chief] Walker said he didn’t know what the signs said because they were in Spanish and he has no Spanish-speaking officers.” And if they do it again, it sounds like he’s going to arrest them.
• And the Register likes to think that Iowa’s house races are the awesomest in the country. That sounds exciting!

Our coverage will get better again soon, we promise.

Add comment March 31st, 2006

Smoking the Future

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.

1 comment March 16th, 2006

Cigarette Tax Debate

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.”

3 comments March 14th, 2006