Jon Corzine has recently introduced a plan in New Jersey to force many of that state’s 566 municipalities to merge together. New Jersey has almost no county government and most local governmental functions are performed at the municipal level. However, over the half of the municipalities in New Jersey have a population of less than 10,000 and the resulting map looks like that of Germany in the Middle Ages, a landscape speckled throughout by innumerable miniature jurisdictions, each of which have their own police force, fire department and school system. The result is a massive wastage of taxpayer money as services are duplicated and triplicated within miles of each other.
Iowa has a similar problem. Iowa has 99 counties with a median population of about 16,000. In a state with a declining tax base and a shrinking rural population, this is totally inefficient. The result is that the State Legislature is forced to subsidize many county governments who can’t bear the costs of having their auditor, recorder, attorney, etc. The reason that there are so many counties in Iowa was so that no one would be more than one day’s wagon ride away from their courthouse. In the age of the automobile, when most rural Iowans drive 20 miles to go grocery shopping at Super Wal Mart, it is strange that there is still a pressing need to keep a County Recorder so close at hand.
Iowa has no need for 99 county courthouses or 99 county attorneys or replicating all the functions of county government 99 times throughout the state. That is why County Consolidation is so important. County consolidation is a good government that both liberals and conservatives can support. For conservatives, it means reducing taxes and the size of government. There are basic efficiencies of scale that can be achieved consolidating services which will save rural taxpayers money. In addition, it reduces the size of government. For liberals and progressives, it frees up government funds to be used on health care or education rather than maintaining a multiplicity of deputy auditors throughout rural Iowa.
Having 99 counties is wasteful and archaic. If Iowa can reduce the number of counties down to 50 or even 75, it would easily save tens of millions of dollars every year and help reduce taxes throughout the state. It is sensible, it is logical and it needs to happen.
March 23rd, 2008
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
