Search Results for ‘proposed pay’
In 1996 a recently elected state representative from Central Iowa sought out the land deal of the decade. What did he get? He made over $50,000 from scamming an elderly woman in Las Vegas, with the help of a local attorney (who would subsequently be disbarred), setting the stage for the biggest scandal in Central Iowa politics this side of CIETC.
Representative Danny Carroll of Grinnell is the Republican Speaker Pro Tem of the Iowa House. He was elected to the Iowa House in 1994 and was elected Speaker Pro Tem in 2003. Carroll is owner of the “Carroll Pumpkin Farm” and is a lobbyist with Iowa Telecom. An extreme social conservative, he has campaigned with GOP presidential hopefuls such as Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Haley Barbour, Senator John McCain, Governor Mitt Romney, and former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich.
The mention of Gingrich is especially pertinent. With Democrats poised to take back the U.S. House and end the Gingrich-led Republican Revolution, the following tale of abuse of power and exploitation demonstrates that the GOP “culture of corruption” has clearly found its way into local Iowa politics, namely through Danny Carroll.
In 1999, Grinnell attorney Brian Bisbee was disbarred by the Iowa Supreme Court for “seriously violat(ing) his ethical responsibility as (a) lawyer.” Bisbee was representing Cora Creamer in the sale of her property to Representative Danny Carroll. Mrs. Creamer was an elderly widow who had fallen behind in her bills. She owed approximately $7,900 in back fees and taxes on her property and she wanted to sell her home. Typical practice is for a person to sell their home and subtract the liens and back taxes from the sale price at closing. What Bisbee didn’t disclose was that he was also participating in the transaction financially by working closely with Representative Carroll who was providing the financing for the deal. In the disbarment proceeding, an unnamed Grinnell realtor is mentioned. The Iowa Progress team has recently uncovered property records that decisively prove that Representative Carroll was the person behind the financing of the transaction as well as the holder of the deed & title.
Essentially, Bisbee & Carroll took a 50% interest in Mrs. Creamer’s Las Vegas home as payment for settling the liens and back taxes on the property.
They did not disclose to Mrs. Creamer that she only owed $7,900. The 50% interest in the home would amount to approximately $50,000. This placed Bisbee in the incredibly unethical position of both representing the interests of the seller and the buyer who was working behind the scenes to finish the deal - Danny Carroll. The liens and back taxes were all paid by Representative Carroll - as shown here. You can also search the public records on the Clark County Recorder’s site HERE.
Now, the rules relating to real estate professionals in Iowa operating out of state are shady, but for lawyers they are very clear. According to the Supreme Court opinion:
“Nothing in the record before us suggests that Bisbee disclosed to his client that the proposed financial arrangement was more advantageous for him than for her. Given this obvious conflict, it became Bisbee’s burden to establish that his transaction with Creamer was fair and equitable.”
Representative Danny Carroll participated in the scamming of a poor elderly woman for his, and Bisbee’s, own financial gain. This is what the Supreme Court said of Bisbee’s conduct:
“Bisbee’s financial entanglement with Creamer […] was costly to her. Moreover, his failure to cooperate in these proceedings has impeded the administration of justice and reflects poorly on his fitness to practice law. His disregard for his client’s interests, as well as those of the profession, demands a lengthy suspension.”
Bisbee was disbarred in 1999, but because he declined to name his partner in crime directly, Carroll largely got off the hook — though not completely: after Bisbee’s disbarment, Carroll “voluntarily” retired from Ramsey-Weeks, the Grinnell real estate firm where he had been employed. I called up Bisbee yesterday who now runs an evangelical shelter in Missouri, to see if he’d answer any questions about his relationship with Carroll. He politely declined. Remember folks, this was a sitting state representative who had also served as a County Supervisor for many years prior. He participated in a deal that “impeded the administration of justice” and bilked a poor older woman of around $50,000. This is the same Representative Danny Carroll who says he values seniors.
But talk is cheap. And unfortunately, it seems Danny Carroll doesn’t put his money where his mouth is.
November 3rd, 2006
I posted about this a few days ago: Nussle made the first TV buy of the 2006 gubernatorial election — and it only cost $500,000! The ad is now online, so watch it a few times (Quicktime, Windows Media). It’s short and incredibly empty of substance, but here’s what it claims (and why it’s flat-out wrong, line by line):
Nussle learned leadership “from the ground up.” That’s mostly just a stupid thing to say. I wonder whether they focus grouped to determine that the “from the ground up” leadership style was more appealing than other less creative, more conventional leadership styles. (The “don’t make a huge surplus into a huge deficit” style of leadership comes to mind as one potential alternative…)
Keep reading; the fun has just begun.
“In Congress, Jim is a leader in the fight to control spending and clean up the house ethics scandal.” I can’t believe he went there. My only guess why is that he knew the Democorats wouldn’t have the money to spend on response ads right now, so audiences wouldn’t hear about how he is as responsible as anyone in Washington for the devastating budget reversal that turned a $236 billion surplus into a $412 billion deficit.
And I’d like to see him try to prove the claim that he’s a leader in the fight to “clean up the house ethics scandal,” but I’m suspicious that the language here, too, is more “manipulative” than, say, “truthful.” The phrase “clean up the house ethics scandal” seems to achieve a number of marketing objectives: First, the language of “cleaning up a scandal” is a lot more favorable to Nussle than the language of “cleaning up a group of crooked politicians,” because Nussle is, on many accounts, a crooked politician. Second, calling it a “scandal” makes it sound like anyone who mentions it or tries to draw attention to it is just a gossip (a gossip who hates FREEDOM). And third, it makes Nussle’s position offensive rather than defensive. If his position were merely “I’m not scandalous,” it would be a weak, defensive position. “I fight scandal” is offense. And he has the money, so he can preempt us like that.
Nussle wants to “make Iowa’s schools the world’s best.” He should’ve thought about it before he co-sponsored the now-infamous No Child Left Behind Act, which attempted to force Iowa to model its education system after the bottom-of-the-barrel Texas system. You’d think that Nussle would at least realize that such a flawed un-funded mandate was a bad idea after the fact, but no, he still touts it on his generic, uninspired education flyer.
He also has his own plan, called “Empowering Parents With Choice in Education” (oh, so now he’s pro-choice). It is also just a tax credit, but it doubles as a creative backdoor into a school voucher program. Except, unlike the other places where school voucher programs have been proposed, this won’t be targeted towards the socioeconomically needy. He just wants to give away $1,500 in tax credits to anyone who wants to send a kid to private school. That’s per kid (maximum $6,000 for married couples or $3,000 for single filers). Iowa already ranks in the bottom half of the nation in per-pupil spending and is losing teachers to bordering states. Do we really need to make it worse? And is a tax credit alone really something Nussle has the right to call an education plan of any kind? I’m thinking not.
Nussle wants to make Iowa “the renewable energy capital of the world.” According to Nussle’s “Energy Project 20/20″, that mostly means tax breaks. Past that, his position is wishy-washy. He does borrow some pretty sweet corn photos from the Iowa Corn Promotion Board, though.
Nussle wants to promote “affordable health care.” He has no health care plan on his web site. He does have a PDF of his “record on health care”, though, and it ain’t pretty. The first vote listed is, well, see for yourself: “Nussle Fought for Iowa Hospitals to Ensure Fair Reimbursements, Extended Coverage and Greater Flexibility.” It made sure hospitals got more money, which Nussle thinks might have also meant employees got paid more. In particular, “providing higher payments for all physicians with a 5% bonus payment to physicians in rural areas.” Way to fight for the underdog.
The second “accomplishment” listed is merely that, as budget chairman, Nussle oversaw the passage of the 2006 budget, which, among about a bazillion other things, “resulted in continued funding for Medicare and Medicaid.”
The rest are generally pro-hospital and pro-doctor (including fighting against “frivolous law suits” and voting “to cut away needless paperwork”).
And finally, he claims that he’ll “energize Iowa’s future.” I don’t see that happening.
April 24th, 2006
It seems these days that as candidates begin to gear up for 2008, Iowa becomes a revolving door for those with aspirations of presidential glory. To wit, just today our fine state was graced with the presence of none other than Bill Frist, everyone’s favorite ultra-conversative surgeon and part-time senate majority leader. Apparently, Frist is in town to tout health care legislature to be proposed in Congress, which though it isn’t “the complete answer,” will “shrink the number of uninsured Americans.” One might surmise that when a medically trained doctor attains the leadership of the senate, we might see more aggressive health care legislation, but it seems Dr. Frist is more preoccupied with pandering to the religious right.
In keeping with Iowa’s status as a revolving door for 2008 candidates, the Washington Post reports that in a week none other than Rudy Giuliani will be in Iowa raising money for republican gubernatorial candidate, Jim Nussle. Does this mean Rudy has a huge affinity for Nussle and just wants to see a local boy do good, or does Rudy have machinations on sitting pretty in the oval office one day soon? Giuliani recently went through Pennsylvania and raised money for Rick Santorum, and given Santorum’s sparkling personality and credentials, one might postulate that the only reason for Giuliani’s visits is to broaden his visibility nation-wide? Rudy in ‘08? We shall see.
Next, on this page on The Post’s website, called The Fix, one can find blog style entries about national politics. Of interest is that Friday’s entry handicaps Iowa as the number 3 most contested gubernatorial election happening in ‘06. Also of interest is the fact that while the blurb on Iowa mentions that Ed Fallon is polling equal to Mike Blouin with a laughable fraction of the money, Fallon has no candidate profile on the Post’s page regarding Iowa.
A couple more things of note. Today Jim Nussle proposed an energy bill in congress featuring a mandate to increase renewable energy. This sure seems like convenient timing after virtually every democratic candidate Nussle is likely to face in November has already come out strongly for renewable energy. As well, this bill doesn’t cover renewable energy for electricity, but only renewable energy as a gasoline replacement. Iowa has the ability to be energy independent, and it’s perhaps time to realize that ethanol85 may not be the answer. Nussle is trying to turn E85 into what amounts to a hotbutton issue for Iowa, not recognizing the fact that E85 is still dependent upon gasoline, and that Iowans are abroad and dying in a misguided war to secure the future of our gasoline-dependent state. Renewable for Iowa does not mean just ethanol, and this legislation is a smoke-screen to get Iowans to think that Nussle is an energy responsible candidate.
In local legislature, the budget talks remain deadlocked, the contentious issues being pay raises for teaches (how in anyone’s right mind can they oppose this?) and tax cuts for seniors.
Finally: All Iowans between 18 and 22 are now eligible for Mumps vaccinations, regardless of whether they are enrolled in college. If you don’t have it, I’d recommend looking into getting vaccinated.
April 24th, 2006
Amidst musings on Vilsack’s trip to the world’s newest democracy, Yepsen comments that the legislature’s compromise budget is likely to emasculate proposed increases in teacher pay and leave Republican tax cuts for seniors in, albeit at half the original proposal:
Instead of Vilsack’s five-year plan to raise teacher pay, look for only the first two years of it to be funded. Instead of a $200 million Republican tax cut for seniors, look for only $100 million.
If that’s true, the Iowa legislature will be making a big mistake. The Republic-proposed senior tax cuts are a thinly veiled handout to Iowa’s richest retirees that will increase the tax burden on working Iowans. Sold as relief for Iowa’s poorest seniors (the proposal includes an end to “all state income taxes on individuals age 65 or older who earn less than $36,000 and couples making less than $48,000.”) what Republicans fail to mention on their website is the windfall for Iowa’s wealthiest retirees. Indeed, Iowa law already exempts the social security income of 2/3 of seniors and a substantial amount of pension income isn’t taxed either. Rather than a win for Iowa’s poorest seniors, the senior tax cuts passed by the house will most help Iowa’s wealthiest retirees afford kitchen renovations.
The bottom line is, seniors are not unfairly hit by taxes in Iowa, and shifting the burden will only mean working Iowans will be squeezed tighter than they already are.
So why do Republicans claim the tax cut is necessary?
By eliminating the tax on pensions and Social Security benefits, we can help keep seniors from leaving Iowa and taking their incomes and civic contributions with them.
The problem? Retiree flight is a fantasy. From 1995 to 2000 only 7/10 of one percent of seniors left Iowa. Of those, most moved to states with higher tax burdens.
Indeed, the Register has it today that it isn’t retirees who are leaving Iowa, but workers—the same people who are expected to pick up the slack after the Republican country club giveaway. As for those seldom few who return to Iowa, they seem to come back to raise a family and give their kids an Iowa education—two words that won’t mean much if Iowa can’t attract qualified teachers.
If Republicans are serious about stopping emigration, they should think about bolstering state education and job opportunities, not tax cuts for wealthy retirees.
April 20th, 2006
Taking advantage of the Easter holiday, Gov. Vilsack chose to ride out the tornados (hope everyone out there is safe and sound) by taking a trip out to Iraq. Is this trip a reflection of Vilsack’s desire to keep in touch with Iowans serving abroad, or is it the continuation of his efforts to build up a cache of international credentials? Does our man in Des Moines really want a crack at the White House? If so, he’d better start flexing some fundraising muscle, as PAC money reports show that this year Vilsack has only raked in $400,600, compared with a cool $6 million for Hillary.
The Iowa legislature resumes Tuesday, hoping to hammer out what remains on the budget. Among the notables is haggling over proposed pay raises for teachers, as the Register reports that Iowa now ranks only 41st in teacher pay grade. Aren’t our schools supposed to be a centerpiece? Gov. Vilsack has also earmarked close to $15 million to allow every 4 year-old in Iowa the chance to go to preschool.
Finally, for those keeping up on the immigration debate, here’s an article showing the effects that restricting migrant labor would have on Iowa’s agriculture. If Iowa is already experiencing labor shortages, what’s it going to take to get Steve King to stop running his mouth?
And, if you haven’t seen it: why everyone should love Al Gore. (you need quicktime to watch).
April 17th, 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
