Search Results for ‘state legislator’
As Mark over at Bleeding Heartland notes, four Iowa House Republicans, including Scott Raecker, requested a hearing on a bill and then didn’t show up for the hearing. The bill, SF 62, passed the Senate unanimously. At the hearing, only three people showed up. The four House Republicans have every right to call for a hearing to be held on SF 62 or on any other bill. But for them to set up a hearing and then not show up is an insult to every taxpaying Iowan. It shows that those four legislators are more interested in political gestures (and political gestures that waste taxpayer money to boot) than actually governing. This is a new low for State House Republicans, who have already spent the still young legislative session insulting working families and playing politics with the health of Iowans. Now, they’re not even bothering to show up for work. But if Raecker and his three fellow goldbricks, Carmine Boal, Linda Miller and Tami Wiencek, don’t want to do their jobs, that’s fine. I’m sure we can find four good Democrats to replace them in 2008.
February 20th, 2007
Joe Bolkcom, the Democratic State Senator from Iowa City, recently introduced SF 104, which lower the voting age to 17 for school board elections. It would also lower the minimum age to register to vote to 17 from 17 1/2. Iowa has always had a law that anyone can register to vote within six months of turning 18, this extends that period for a year, which would make it easier for many young people to register.
A number of countries already allow young people to vote and lowering the voting age to 16 is part of the platform of major international political parties including the Social Democrats in Austria, the New Democratic Party in Canada and the Liberal Democrats in Great Britain. Bolkcom’s bill would only have an effect on the elections where young people have the most at stake, school board races. It helps remedy the absurdity that the people who don’t have a voice in how schools are run are the students. It’s a good progressive bill. Although it’s doubtful that it will pass, it’s worth sending an email to your State Senator about. If people start paying attention, it’s possible that the bill could gain some momentum. It would be an important step towards expanding political rights for young people.
February 18th, 2007
Iowa Progress has previously profiled a cutthroat Grinnellian, now we turn our attention to a Grinnell alum who has come up with a really dumb idea. Scott Raecker ‘84 is a Republican member of the State Legislature who introduced an amendment in the Iowa House to the anti-bullying bill which recently passed the State Senate. The bill is designed to prevent the real problem of bullying in Iowa’s public schools. How does Raecker’s amendment address the problem of bullying and harassment? It’s designed to protect the most vulnerable people in the state, members of Iowa General Assembly.
While it’s nice to protect such frail and fragile members of society, the amendment, if passed, would create all sorts of issues. If while Scott Raecker was speaking at a campaign event, you shouted “Hey Raecker, the only thing dumber than you is that amendment to the bullying bill you introduced,” and Raeker then stopped speaking, you would be guilty of bullying and harassing. You would have engaged in conduct based on a “mental ability or disability” that would have substantially interfered with Raeker’s “campaign performance.” This only skims the surface of the massive First Amendment issues this amendment would have created. However, there was another issue with the amendment that ultimately prevent its passage. It has nothing to do with bullying in schools.
So why did Scott Raeker introduce this amendment, (which was instantly ruled non-germane)? Because it was designed as a wrecking amendment. If it’s added to the bill, it makes a hash of it. And if it isn’t added, all the Democrats are on record supporting “bullying and harrassing of and by public officials.” The Republicans immediately tried overturn the Speaker’s ruling that the amendment was non germane. Predictably, it failed on a party-line vote.
Although the bill ended up passing the House by a vote of 62-37, it did so after hours of debate and more pointless wrecking amendments introduced by House Republicans. But none were quite as pointless and badly thought out as Scott Raecker’s. Many legislators introduce bills or amendments that are stupid, many others introduce bills or amendments that are unconstitutional. But few can say they’ve ever done as good a job of interweaving those two threads as Scott Raecker did yesterday.
February 8th, 2007
So Congress.org just released congressional Power Rankings, and lo and behold, Iowa is doing pretty well.
Congressmen (and women) were ranked according to 15 ‘characteristics of power,’ including things like positions, influence, and legislative activity. You guys should probably just check out the background page to learn about their methodology, but here are some highlights:
In addition, the project team recognized that Members of Congress can exert or possess power that can’t be measured by these standard measures. Therefore, we created the “Sizzle/Fizzle” factor. For example, Sizzle factors can include a legislator’s unique background and experience (Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)) or relationships (Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)) or newfound popularity (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)) that somehow adds weight to their power that is not scored in the other categories. In contrast, Fizzle factors can be applied to legislators who have seen their power diminish during the year, despite their position, due to scandal or other factors that impair the ability of the member to be effective. This was the only subjective criteria and was not weighted heavily in the overall ratings.
…
The Power Rankings project team acknowledges that Members of Congress sometimes exercise power in ways that cannot be seen or measured. The most tangible example of this is the ability to steer federal funding to their state through the appropriations process – called “earmarking.”
After these and other such stunning insights into the congressional processes, they came up with the following results:
Top five Senators:
1. Bill Frist (R-TN) 96.75
2. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 82.31
3. John McCain (R-AZ) 80.94
4. Charles Grassley (R-IA) 78.50
5. Harry Reid (D-NV) 71.06
Top five Representatives:
1. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) 97.25
2. Tom DeLay (R-TX) 63.50
3. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) 60.57
4. Don Young (R-AK) 55.00
5. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) 48.00
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first, Chuck is the 4th most powerful Senator, making Iowa proud–well, sort of.
Other surprises? Well, Tom DeLay is the #2 rep, although, one must suspect he has a pretty high Fizzle Factor, seeing as he resigned from office.
So how does Iowa stack up? Well, our fine state as a whole ranked third most powerful, with 28.92, after Nevada with 29.76 and New Mexico with 28.96. The scores come from the average of the state’s congressional delegate’s scores. Harkin weighed in at 37.94, which puts him at 35. For reps, we got Nussle at 54th with 23.44, Leach is at 69th place with 22.00, Latham is 190 with 15.50, and King is 208 with 14.94, and Grinnell’s own Boswell had a whopping 10.12, making him the 302nd most powerful representative.
Okay, so now you’re asking, so what? You’ve soldiered through this kinda long post full of numbers whose meanings are at best ill-defined and whose significance is probably illusory and you are wondering what this all means. Well, me too. Why did Congress.org do this? I don’t know! Can power be quantified? Probably not! Does this mean Iowa is going to be the proud recipient of more pork-barrell spending? Again, probably not (plus, don’t we produce pork?). Is Nussle going to call up Boswell to boast his numerical superiority tonight? One can only imagine.
May 16th, 2006
We recently invited staffers from the Fallon, Culver, and Blouin campaigns to participate in email interviews about working in Iowa politics and about their campaigns. We were interested, first, in seeing which campaigns would even agree to do it. Luckily, all three consented.
From the Mike Blouin campaign, Matt Paul answered our questions. Matt is from Cedar Rapids, and he’s Blouin’s campaign manager. Here’s what he had to say.
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Matt: My first political job was in the Mayor’s Office in Cedar Rapids, my hometown, when I was 24.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or
what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
Matt: I worked in Governor Vilsack’s office for seven years. Before working in politics, I worked as a reporter.
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
Matt: Like all political communication, applications for the internet and electronic media constantly change. Nothing is more vital than a clear message–no matter the outlet. The internet will continue to provide voters the chance to seek out information on their own, to research topics important to them and to create new methods to receive information during an election cycle.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
Matt: Students in Iowa have such an advantage to engage in the political process because of their ability to access the Iowa caucuses. Since Iowa is also a relatively low cost media market, students get to see the important role retail politics play. I think our party does an excellent job of seeking the input and active participation of students and that should absolutely continue. Since Iowa is an aging state, its critical that students stay involved in the process and active in the party so younger voices continue to be heard. We have to make more progress in keeping young people here and making sure our communities give them a reason to stay.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult
to account for both groups in crafting your message?
Matt: No. Iowa needs to grow and that means creating economic opportunity in all parts of the state and remaining committed to growth that embraces diversity and gives local communities the flexibility to chart their own course.
IP: (Campaign-specific question) How involved were you in choosing Dr. McGuire as running-mate? How do you respond to criticism that the choice was made for political reasons (McGuire is pro-choice)?
Matt: I was involved but the decision was ultimately Mike’s to make. Dr. McGuire was selected for one simple reason: she is qualified. Not only is she a medical doctor, she also holds a MBA and has been involved in a number of community organizations serving women and children. She is pro-choice but her selection was based upon her qualifications.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
Mike has the right experience, vision and ability to lead Iowa forward. He is the only candidate in the race with a strong record of job creation and his unequaled support from legislators is a clear sign that he could bring the statehouse together and make historic progress for all Iowans.
IP: Do you have a funny anecdote you’d like to share? Or anything else to add?
Matt: This is the first time I have ever submitted a blog entry. I suddenly feel very old.
April 27th, 2006
Tonight at 7, Mike Blouin sat down to chat with Grinnell students for about an hour in the Loose dorm lounge. It had a smaller attendance than yesterday’s Fallon event, but that made for a more personal atmosphere. We formed a circle in Loose lounge’s mismatched, anachronistic armchairs and spoke pretty candidly about politics and college antics. (Thankfully, Hannah and I got to Loose early enough to tuck away the empty 30 racks of Natty Light before Mike arrived…) Read more after the jump.
Blouin was the candidate you’d least suspect would command the interest of an audience of college kids. Of the three candidates, he’s the oldest, and he has been cast — perhaps undeservedly — as an “establishment candidate”; so that’s not quite Grinnell material.
But Blouin engaged us. His demeanor was something between professorial and “quirky uncle,” and it worked. I know my opinion of him changed because of the event. Here are some interesting morsels:
Blouin began his speech with a very strong position in favor of a clean elections law. His language was surprisingly firm and insistent. Money, he said, was his biggest complaint about what has changed in Iowa since he got involved in politics.
He also gave us a brief biography. He went to Loras (at age 16), decided to settle in Iowa, got married, became a teacher (as did his wife), got elected to the legislature and was fired for it, had a child with his wife who had been fired for getting pregnant, had to live on a legislator’s salary alone, and worked his way up to being in charge of economic growth (and job creation) in Iowa. He resigned from his job working for Vilsack to run for governor, and he did it early so that there wouldn’t be any question of his objectivity.
Blouin also talked about his plan for government-sponsored health insurance. No one asked him to clarify, but it sounded a lot like Kerry’s plan (something short of “universal,” but still “universally accessible”). Andy McGuire has been the point-person on this, and she has served both with doctors (as a medical expert and researcher) and insurance companies, so she really knows the health insurance system, etc.
The second half is critical of Nussle:
He criticizes Nussle’s oversight of our deficit, but he drives it home by relating it to government services (education and health care).
Q&A:
On giving companies tax breaks to draw them to Iowa:
“I’d be a hypocrite if I said we should never do it. In the ideal, I wouldn’t do it ever. In the ideal world, you wouldn’t have to. In the ideal world, states wouldn’t be giving away their tax breaks in competition with each other… The trouble is we live in a very real world… And until the courts — I say the courts because Congress will never do this — find a way to stop it, we’ve gotta compete…we’ll lose the opportunity to keep our young people.”
He then talks about how our education is great, but people come here for education and then leave, and that’s something he wants to discourage.
He then talks about how the jobs he brought to Iowa had a lot of benefits. The tax breaks he gave businesses came with a lot of requirements, including pay that was above average per capita income in the state, guarantees that they’d stay, etc. In the cases when we didn’t keep businesses here, it was because other states (e.g., South Carolina) gave away unreasonably huge rewards to companies. So Blouin is in favor of tax breaks with guarantees like that.
Eric asked about Iowa’s food deficit (we import 85% of our food):
Blouin deconstructs the statistic and said that it involved seasons, etc. He also said that promoting organic farming (which is mostly for human consumption) will improve that situation.
On my question about abortion:
He states his position (here on his web site) pretty persuasively. I usually get annoyed by the “I’m pro-life personally but not politically” politicians but Blouin wasn’t annoying. He gives concrete examples of the (strategically) liberal programs he’d support to reduce abortions while still honoring his promise to maintain the right to choose. And, finally, he deflects potential criticism for his 1970s votes for a ban on abortion by explaining, “Now it’s taken me years to get to [this] point, but I’m comfortable.”
So then I asked if he’d support laws like the requirements that abortion clinics provide information to pregnant women about the pain their fetus will feel or about adoption services, and he said, unequivocally, that he will not sign any bill that would affect abortion on either side of the issue. He claims, to explain why his pro-life position is actually more effective than Nussle’s, “Republicans want an issue. I want a solution.”
On Alec’s question about the “WalMart laws”:
He likes them, but he needs a democratic legislature.
“I think there’s something seriously wrong with a corporate mindset that hires people at low wages, condemns government giveaways, and calls their employees together to explain how they, as employees of WalMart, can go get Medicaid services. Yeah, it oughta be illegal.”
And he says Eric Palmer is a great candidate who could help change the balance in the legislature.
On Alec’s question about requiring health insurance by law (like Massachusetts):
“To mandate people to buy something they can’t afford to pay for, in itself doesn’t work. You’ve gotta make sure that you’ve got a product — a basic product — that’s affordable for everyone. I want to see how it works in Massachusetts, and I think we can get a pretty good read in a couple of years.”
He goes on to talk about Andy McGuire’s medical qualifications. And then he gives a pretty detailed account of what improvements he wants to make. And he proposes “bridge health insurance” for recent college graduates if they are looking for jobs in Iowa.
He also talks about how he wants to bring down pharmaceutical costs. He wants transparency in drug pricing, but it’ll take creativity to make it constitutional. He thinks he has a solution (by asking for transparency only for drugs that the state buys directly).
On Hannah’s question on McGuire’s donations to Republicans:
Greg Ganske, who unseated Neal Smith, was also McGuire’s neighbor, which explains her donation.
Jim Nussle was her brother’s neighbor, so she donated to one of his early congressional campaigns. But,
“When he abandoned the value system he said he had, she and [her husband] dropped him. 35% of Iowans are Democrats. You’ve got to get to 51%. You’ve gotta reach out to Independents and progressive Republicans who are scared to death of the Nussle/Vanderplaats ticket, and Andy can do it.”
Then a jab at Ed Fallon (although not mentioned by name):
“You know we’ve got another candidate in this race who publicly endorsed Ralph Nader in the 2000 general election against Al Gore. Helped bring us George Bush. And who, through his organization, endorsed a couple of incumbent Republicans in the legislature. That’s what he did. That was then. This is today. And he’s a very competent guy, and he’s got a right to run. I don’t think you can bash him for it… He probably wished he hadn’t done it back then…”
On Eric’s question on whether Blouin would raise taxes to increase teacher pay:
“I don’t think we have to raise taxes to do it.”
He talks about the need to improve pay for teachers, nurses, and day care providers.
All in all, it was an interesting event. I wish more students had made it out.
Oh! And, on his way out, he made a joke about how blogs can be scary. Boo!
April 23rd, 2006
Gubernatorial candidate Ed Fallon stopped by Grinnell for lunch today. At least 30 students attended. Fallon began by talking with students informally at each table, and, afterwards, gave a speech and answered questions from the group. There’s an approximation of what happened (we have the event’s audio, and we’ll probably drop some clips into our podcast, coming soon) after the jump.
Ed Fallon began his speech with his clean elections proposal. He names Maine and Arizona as the two states with the best clean elections systems in the country. He quotes a Maine state legislator saying that universal health care can only happen after a clean elections law, because right now special interests control too much. He says often the special interest money goes to Republicans, but he takes a jab at Patty Judge’s money, too.
He says that the primary is the place to make sure you vote for candidates whom you really believe in.
He says that he’s not wealthy, unlike other people who run for public office, and that he lived without any health insurance for a long time. He talks about universal health care again. He criticizes sales tax exemptions for hospital purchases and not for everyday consumers. He says he tries to change things, but, although most legislators agree with him, they all get strongarmed by party leadership who are in the pockets of special interests. As governor, he could be on the same playing field as special interests, which would give him the opportunity to change things.
He talks about how his campaign is going: 1200 volunteers, over 120 house parties, organization in 73 of Iowa’s 99 counties.
Finally, he criticizes cuts in education in Iowa. He wants to end the cuts in the Iowa tuition grant. He says that Iowa’s education system was one of the best in the country, but it’s struggling because of tax cuts for the rich. We gave $16 million to Maytag, and the outgoing CEO of Maytag got a $19 million bonus.
Notes from the Q&A:
On how Ed will get universal health care passed in Iowa’s political climate:
“I believe that if people are fired up about something, the legislature will get it done. Because legislators respond to three things: a lot of them really want to do the right thing. A lot of them feel bullied into doing the wrong thing because of the thread of not getting reelected — if they offend one of their big funders. But most importantly — more important than anything — is the voter. People in their district who feel strongly about an issue. If everybody in their district is talking about health care, and they make it clear that they want to see a universal health care system pass, that lawmaker is going to have to support that or risk losing in the next election. So what I can do as governor is create a climate where people are talking about the issue. Where there’s an expectation that something’s gonna happen. I don’t care if it’s a Republican or Democratic legislature. I’d rather it be a Democratic legislature, but again it doesn’t have to be to get it done. It doesn’t have to be, but we could get a better plan if we have a Democratic legislature.”
On intelligent design:
“I don’t think intelligent design is very intelligent. It’s funny the euphemisms they come up for things, isn’t it? I mean, we used to call it creationism. It’s a back-door way of trying to work religion into the public school curriculum, and that bothers me. And, you know, I’m a religion major; I value my faith quite deeply. But I also value the principle of separation of church and state. And it just seems to me it’s a slippery way of trying to get it into the back door.”
He went on to give a pretty scholarly account of creation stories in Genesis.
On criminal justice system:
“Our criminal justice system is really out of whack. It’s really focused on incarceration. There has been a trend in the legislature to create longer and longer sentences in response to concerns about public safety. A particular crime happens and the response is to enact a new penalty for it.”
He went on to give examples of this, including our 2,000 foot rule for sex offenders, which Fallon says makes us looks bad because of how many problems have been exposed about it. He was the only no vote on the law. He favors a restorative justice approach, or “community based corrections.”
“It involves trying to work with community. I’m really concerned that the current process is not really fair to the victims and the victims’ families as well.”
On alternative energy:
“We have the capacity in Iowa to be energy independent… We can be energy independent in 10 years… The challenge in my mind is making sure the energy industry we create is locally controlled. Right now, again it’s related back to campaign finance reform, you’ve got big companies … that know how to play the game financially.”
Takes a jab at Culver, whose top donor is an energy company from another state.
On the Iowa rainforest:
“It’s kind of ironic that we’re going to build a rainforest in Iowa even as we import these low-cut burgers at McDonalds that involve destruction of the rainforest in Central and South America… I’ve never supported the rainforest… I’d like to see us do more for prairie restoration.”
On immigration:
He’s a welcoming person. He spoke (in Spanish) at the big protest in Des Moines.
April 22nd, 2006
Legislators will begin investigating the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium tomorrow after top officers were found to have received “excessive” salaries.
State Auditor David Vaudt told the AP that the state may be responsible for repayment to the federal government of $1.8 million.
The agency’s board members say they didn’t know where the money was going, while Des Moines City Councilman Archie Brooks told the Register that a stroke prevented him from taking care of the matter:
“My memory is not what it was. The government knows that. They pay me for it. I lose thought. I lose mind. I lose names. I can’t use that as an excuse. Did I not keep track of the records? Did I not keep a running total on my desk? No. Was I the only person authorized to sign? Yes.”
I don’t even know what to make of all this. A line from Casablanca springs to mind though. We’ll see.
April 4th, 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
Next Posts
