For what shall it profit Chet, if he shall gain Yepsen, and lose his party?

David Yepsen was singing the praises of Chet Culver today for undermining efforts to allow teachers and other public employees the same rights as private sector employees. Apparently if this happens, there’s a chance that teachers may negotiate for smaller class sizes as part of collective bargaining and why would any Iowa school want smaller class sizes? Except, of course, that there is a definitive link between class size and academic performance among students. Yepsen also brings up the scary fact that the collective bargaining bill would mean more binding arbitration which Yepsen is sure means higher costs to government. However, Ed Tibbets in an exhaustive piece for the Quad City Times shows that binding arbitration only happens rarely. In fact, it only occurs in 1% of all contract disputes in Iowa. In fact, binding arbitration may work against teachers and other public employees union. While opponents of the bills claim that in arbitration cases involving school districts, teachers prevail against management 57% of the time (although includes a mere 63 cases that occurred over the past 5 years), the Quad City Times’ review of arbitration cases in Scott County shows the contrary and management prevailing over public employees almost 60% of the time.

However, this isn’t stopping the fearmongering. Far-right organizations like Iowans for Tax Relief are claiming (without any data to back up their claims, of course) this could lead to disastrous rises in property taxes, leading Iowa to become more like such states as Maryland, Kansas and Maine and less like such states as Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico (which incidentally not only have the lowest property taxes in the nation but rank in the bottom for household income, percentage of those living in poverty, employment and just about every other indicator of economic and social health available). So why is Chet going against fairness for teachers and other public employees (along with virtually every Democrat in the legislature) to bathe in the good graces of Iowans for Tax Relief and David Yepsen?

One assumes this is political posturing, designed to strengthen Culver’s hand in his dealings with the legislature. After all, as the Sioux City Journal notes “Culver raised no objections with the substance of the bill, just the process by which it passed. Spokesman Brad Anderson said Culver was ‘not pleased’ that he wasn’t notified earlier, and felt the public should have been included in the debate.” This isn’t politics, it’s personal pique.

As a result, Culver’s annoyance with Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy, he’s fanned the flames of this issue in a way that has energized Republicans and hurt working people. Iowa Democrats have waited 40 years to pass progressive legislation and for Culver to show such pettiness by standing in the way is disgraceful and sullies an otherwise admirable record as Governor. As Jack Kibbie notes, one imagines that Culver will support the collective bargaining bill “because of his future. He’s running on the Democratic ticket, I presume.” But if Culver continues to stand against guaranteeing public employees the same rights as their private sector counterparts, he’ll be as good a fit on the Republican ticket as on the Democratic one.

19 comments March 30th, 2008

Nomination Contests Are Not Like Free Trade

From the generally astute First Read:

Did anyone else notice Huckabee disappearing a bit on stage? His normally well-received schtick didn’t seem the right pitch for an economic debate, and Thompson definitely seemed to overshadow him. McCain had a couple of good moments, but he also didn’t seem to be as involved in this debate as he was in previous ones. By the way, when will the front-running candidates begin banding together and ask debate organizers to shrink the field. All of them would likely benefit.[emphasis added]

All of them would likely benefit? I don’t know about you, but I’ve always thought of the nomination contest as a zero-sum game.

By the way, if Ron Paul was excluded, how would Rudy insert those self-righteous history lessons of his?

Add comment October 10th, 2007

Barack Obama Acquires Some Questionable Supporters

While the tempest in a teapot has been raging about the comments that Obama backer David Geffen made about Hillary Clinton, it’s worth noting that Obama, who was in Iowa last night, has acquired some questionable supporters. Obama has freely accepted the support of someone with known links to transvestite prostitutes, of a person who’s publicly made anti-Semitic remarks and, most appallingly, of Ben Stiller.

It’s highly doubtful that Hillary Clinton will attack Obama for his links with the man responsible Meet The Fockers (although that film was more appalling than any comment David Geffen has made or ever could make). But the basic point is who cares? It is one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Obama on his position on Iraq, his lack of anything remotely resembling a healthcare plan or on any other substantive issue. Those attacks produce real debate that actually matters. But attacking Obama because someone who wrote him a check said something nasty to Maureen Dowd is meaningless. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, it doesn’t effect the life of a single person and it doesn’t produce any meaningful debate.

Presidential primaries, like any other election, are fundamentally about negativity. Presidential primaries specifically arose to keep political bosses from sweeping party conflicts under the carpet to broker political deals. They are about replacing compromise with conflict. Primaries are about candidates competing to see whose vision of their party is the most compelling and about testing each candidate to see who can best hold up under the enormous strain and pressure of a general election. However, not all negative attacks are created equal. They can point out clear flaws in candidate’s programs like when George H.W. Bush described Ronald Reagan’s plan for tax cuts for the rich as “voodoo economics” and lead to important debate. But when they’re just pointless attacks for the sake of scoring some easy points in the press like Hillary Clinton’s on David Geffen, it contributes nothing to the public arena and degrades the entire political process.

2 comments February 22nd, 2007