Iowa Politics Exposed

Opinion's not opinion anymore...

2019-02-18T18:49:00.002-06:00

Look at the Des Moines Register's online main page Monday afterrnoon.

You'll see that the weekly leftist opinion piece by Rehka Basu is not labeled as "Opinion" as it used to be. And the headline is definately click bait for left-wing activists.

So now the question: What happened?

Why has the Register decided to drop any labels of opinion on its front page? It says opinion on the story...

And, more importantly, why does the Des Moines Register employ a left-wing columnist without employing someone from the right?

Especially when stories like this show their bias (came onto the website after 6pm)

The Des Moines Register has taken an editorial stand against Rep. Steve King and President Trump. That they have a right to do.

So do people who have subscribed to the Des Moines Register thinking they would get a more unbiased look at the news of the day from a local paper. Something that's not happening.

Bill to legalize Iowa DOT cops hits subcommittee

2018-02-08T10:47:00.001-06:00

A bill to allow the Iowa DOT's Motor Vehicle Enforcement Officers to issue regular traffic tickets is moving its way through the legislature.

Monday, Feb 12, 2018, a subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee will meet on HSB 639, which is designed to give the "Iowa MVE" officers the same powers as every other peace officer in the state.

You see, Iowa Code currently isn't of one mind when it comes to the MVE officers. One part of the code says the Iowa DOT can designate a "certain number" of employees as peace officers, while the rest of the code seems to put strong limits on their powers.

For example, currently, state law doesn't allow the "Iowa MVE" officers to operate "within the limits of any city" unless authorized by the governor, requested by the city or to continue their enforcement of commercial weight limits on state roads, or as part of a drug enforcement effort. All of that would be gone in the bill and the "Iowa MVE" would be on par with Iowa State Patrol officers and local police.

The Iowa legislature in 2017 approved legislation that allows MVE officers to act as regular cops, but it expires this year. This bill would make it forever.

Really, this whole issue dates back to the 90's when, in the midst of severe budget constraints, then-Governor Terry Branstad got the legislature to "temporarily" fund the Iowa State Patrol from the Road Use Tax Fund, which freed up money from the state general fund for other uses to avoid a deficit.

There was a lot of hue and cry about the legality of that action, so in subsequent years the Iowa legislature put the Iowa State Patrol's funding back to the general fund. However, the Iowa DOT had always had the authority to hire its own MVE officers to enforce commercial weight limits on the state's highways (they're the officers that staffed the old weight stations). So the DOT officers started filling in holes in Iowa State Patrol officer coverage by issuing speeding tickets.

Enter Peyton Atzen. In 2016, he was a 16 year old Southeast Polk High School student. He got ticketed for speeding by an Iowa MVE officer. (Actually the ticket said he was doing 84 miles per hour in a 55 miles an hour zone, which Peyton disputed) Associate Polk County Judge Heather Lauber ruled that the Iowa MVE officer didn't have the authority to issue the ticket, and dismissed the speeding ticket.

She cited an Iowa Supreme Court ruling from over 70 years ago that denies MVE officers the same rights as "regular" peace officers, and the Iowa Attorney General's office affirmed that in an opinion which said the only "normal" peace officer powers they had was to enforce commercial weight limits and to enforce drunk driving laws.

The Iowa DOT argued that at the time of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in 1948 that Iowa MVE officers weren't required to go through the same peace officer training that Iowa State Troopers were. Now, they say, they are.

However, the code authorizing Iowa MVE officers to be peace officers doesn't require the same training.

The committee will deal with that issue...and the fact that if they don't act, revenue from the fines issued by the Iowa MVE officers could be in jeopardy.

Since 2011, the Iowa DOT reports that $3.7 million dollars in fines were generated from tickets issued by Iowa MVE. The court system has a vested interest as well, since $1.5 million was generated in court costs.

There's the potential for a class action lawsuit here. Already, Atzen's attorneys have a new victim, 70 year old Rickie Lee Rizen, who last year got a ticket from an Iowa MVE officer for speeding in a work zone and paid $460 in fines and fees. Rizen is suing the state for wrongful prosecution and it's still pending resolution.

So with the courts risking another hit to their funding-and the same to the general fund, will lawmakers approve the bill? If they do, will they mandate that Iowa MVE officers do what the DOT says is the case now-they have the same qualifications and undergo the same training as Iowa State Patrol officers-at the same pay scale?

Perhaps the answer is to put the Iowa State Patrol back under the Iowa DOT umbrella, and take money out of the picture. Oh, wait...the state road use tax fund's not what it used to be either. It's dependent on fuel taxes...and with more electric or hybrid cars on the market, that's impacting fuel sales.

It's about money. Meaning the legislature will act so they don't have to cut any more budgets.

It's time for another cities-versus-citizens debate over traffic cameras in Iowa

2018-02-07T00:14:00.004-06:00

There will be a debate over banning traffic cameras in the Iowa Legislature this year...or will there?

Earlier, I reported the "fact" that a traffic camera ban bill passed the Senate Judiciary committee. I was told as much by Sen. Brad Zaun, the chairman of the committee.

The Iowa Senate's already approved a bill last year (Senate File 220) which doesn't actually ban automated traffic cameras. It bans them IF local governments don't first meet a whole bunch of criteria on signage and safety concerns, etc. But they get to keep them if they follow the myriad of rules.

It requires the cameras to be calibrated daily, and if they are out of kilter, there can be no citations issued. Fines for violators can't be more than what is currently specified in state law for normally-ticketed violations. It also requires cities and counties to deposit fines collected from their camera tickets in their public safety fund (not the general fund). And it sets up a uniform appeal process for tickets.

While I'm sure the supporters say this will mean the companies that currently install these cameras for free (then collect a chunk of the fines from the tickets in repayment) will find it unprofitable to operate, the fact is that a clean ban on traffic cameras could have passed this year.
.
The Senate Judiciary Committee did approve a full-on ban bill...it's Senate File 2148 in January. It appears they're waiting on the Iowa House to act on its version of the same bill.

The Iowa House has a full ban that passed onto the debate calendar. It's House File 2118 which passed the House Local Government committee.

However, two big-city legislators-one Democrat and one Republican have filed amendments that would strike the ban and turn the bill into the "non-ban bill" the Senate has approved. Muscatine Rep. Gary Carlson (R-Muscatine) and Des Moines Rep. Brian Meyer are the two seeking to neuter the ban...so far.

If you want a full-on ban of the automated red light and speeding cameras that cities and counties have been using to extract money from motorists without involving police officers on the scene, then you need to contact leadership of the House. Tell them you ONLY want House File 2118...not Carlson's or Meyer's amendments. Then let your voice be heard with Sen. Brad Zaun that you want a full ban, not the watered-down bill his committee passed.

It's really a battle between cities and counties who claim they need more money and drivers who can't afford to give it to them in the form of these automated tickets. We'll see who wins out!

Washington Post twists Rod Blum interview walkout story-edits video

2017-05-09T16:11:00.001-05:00

Here's another example of the Washington media twisting a story to fit their own narrative:

KCRG-TV had an interview with Congressman Rod Blum prior to his town hall meeting. Blum was asked by the reporter why he was requiring ID's from participants at that meeting to show ID and be from the 1st Congressional District.

Blum responded that he wanted to hear what people in the district felt.

The reporter pressed, and Blum said people from other districts should go visit their own members of Congress and Senators.

The reporter still pressed, asking if Blum had taken campaign dollars from outside the district. Blum got angry, took off his microphone and ended the interview.

That's what happened according to the raw tape, which you'll see below. Here's how the Washington Post told the story:

Worse yet, the Washington Post EDITED the video they showed on there website to make it seem that Blum walked out right away. Here's the video the Washington Post showed...YOU be the judge if the article and the video by the Washington Post are distorting what happened.

Here's the actual interview as posted on the KCRG website:

KCRG-TV story about Congressman Blum walkout and full interview

Iowa AG Tom Miller does about face on Lt. Gov powers and loses face.

2017-05-02T09:01:00.001-05:00

Iowa AG Tom Miller waded deep into the muck of politics Monday, and why?

Full disclosure: I consider Tom Miller a personal friend. I had the privilege of doing one of the first electronic media interviews with him the first time he ran for office.

That said, I thought I knew Miller.

He's not one who wades blindly into partisan political matters, in fact he's stayed clear of a lot of the political battles that have taken place in Iowa these days.

I'm going out on a limb here: Without talking to him, I'm going to say that he was pressured into releasing the formal opinion that everyone's talking about-saying that Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds only inherits the powers of the governor...but not the power to appoint a successor.

At first glance it looks like a coup. A Democrat is telling a Republican she can't appoint a successor. But it's not. The Iowa Constitution, and the duly ratified amendments contradict him.

Miller points religiously to the Iowa Constitution's original writers, who wanted to have officials that are elected by the people to serve at the top tier. That was a looong time ago, when the governor's term was originally voted on to be two years (not four) and when there was a separate election for the governor and lieutenant governor, which changed after adoption of a constitutional amendment in 1990:

the powers and duties shall devolve to the nominee for lieutenant governor of the same set of nominees for governor and lieutenant governor, who shall assume the powers and duties of governor upon inauguration and until the disability is removed. If both nominees for governor and lieutenant governor are unable to assume the duties of the office of governor, the person next in succession shall act as governor.

I added the boldface. But it contravenes what Miller is saying, that the Lt. Governor doesn't have the "power" to select a replacement, when that is clearly what the Iowa Constitution states. From the enrolled Iowa Constitution:

Vacancies. SEC. 10. When any office shall, from any cause, become vacant, and no mode is provided by the constitution and laws for filling such vacancy, the governor shall have power to fill such vacancy, by granting a commission, which shall expire at the end of the next session of the general assembly, or at the next election by the people.

That's part of the Iowa Constitution. So, if the constitutional amendment that allows the lieutenant governor to "assume the powers and duties of governor" is valid, then one of the "powers" enumerated in the Iowa Constitution is to fill the vacancy of "any office".

And I think Tom Miller knows that. That's why his body language was so evident during the news conference. He was pressured to say otherwise, with the rhetoric of the original constitutional convention-not the debates for the amendments-as his guidepost. (By the way, the original constitution was so "enlightened" there needed to be an amendment added that took out the restriction that only men could serve in the legislature.)

So, if Democrats pressured him to say that, why? A payoff to Sen. David Johnson, the Ocheydan Republican-turned Independent who's been a thorn in the GOP's side? Doubtful. Johnson's a "caucus of one" unless he chooses otherwise. And then he becomes a Democrat. Right now, they owe him nothing.

Was it the desire by Democrats to "stick it" to Gov. Branstad? Perhaps, but again, why? Democrats gain nothing by this. Again, according to the Iowa Constitution according to Miller, the rite of succession to Governor would "devolve" to the President of the State Senate, which would be a Republican, Jack Whitver. Then it goes to the Speaker of the Iowa House, again a Republican, Linda Upmeyer. Then to the Iowa Secretary of State, again a Republican, Paul Pate.

There's no "win" there for Democrats. It gives a great headline to opponents of the Branstad-Reynolds administration, but doesn't help Democrats. It only makes General Miller look like a partisan hack.

And even if one looks to the next gubernatorial election, you can't see any clear victory for Democrats. Denying Reynolds an incumbent Lieutenant Governor doesn't hurt or help. She can win or lose on her own, as all gubernatorial candidates do.

I must admit that I'm puzzled on the decision by Miller to do an about-face, when he had given an informal opinion to the contrary last December. Miller's decision to change his mind only invites suggestion that maybe it was due to the fact that Reynolds was considering Adam Gregg, who opposed him in the last election in 2014 for Attorney General. Miller beat Gregg by double-digits. So it only makes him look spiteful.

The Tom Miller I know genuinely cares about people. I've seen him when cameras weren't around offering help to people regardless of their party out of the warmth of his own heart. He is by nature a very decent, honest man. And in the news conference his talk about his own struggle with the opinion appeared honest. In the end, the staff won. But he's the Attorney General, not them, and has the last say.

I hope what happened with this opinion doesn't signal that the Tom Miller I know has changed.

2017-03-11T13:02:00.000-06:00

White House media cheer as Fox News reporter accosts gay conservative reporter.

Jon Decker, who's Fox News Radio's White House reporter, accosted a gay conservative reporter for the website "Gateway Pundit" in front of the bathroom at the White House.

Here's the story as best I can piece it together from both sides:

Lucian Wintrich is a reporter for the conservative website "Gateway Pundit". He's also gay, as is the blog's owner, Jim Hoft. He has just received credentials allowing him to take part in the White House press briefings.

Wintrich says last Friday he was in line to get into the bathroom outside the press briefing room at the White House, when Jon Decker, got in his way and began shouting things at him. Wintrich says Decker called him "anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-woman" and claimed that Wintrich was writing for a Nazi publication.

Bullies never check their facts...and so it is with Jon Decker. Turns out, Wintrich asked Decker if he'd ever read anything that he'd written for Gateway Pundit and Decker didn't have an answer. It also turns out that Wintrich is the grandson of Holocaust survivors. Wintrich says Decker also shouted that Wintrich was anti-Hispanic. Again, Decker opened his mouth without knowing what he was talking about: Wintrich says his boyfriend is Hispanic.

Decker denies any physical intimidation, saying only that he informed the White House press pool that Wintrich was a reporter for Gateway Pundit. Not so, says BuzzFeed News's Adrian Carrasquillo, who tweeted that Decker "loudly told everyone in the briefing room" that Gateway Pundit was a blog that hates "blacks, Jews and hispanics."

As a member of the media, I'm angered by what Jon Decker did. And I'm equally upset that Fox News Radio didn't repremand him or at least investigate what happened beyond asking Decker.

Decker should be suspended from his job for those comments...and should also be removed from his position at Georgetown University as an adjunct faculty member.

If Decker wanted to attack Wintrich on his blog, or on Facebook or Twitter, fine. But I would need to remind Decker there was a time when Fox News was the Gateway Pundit of the White House press corps-and his company has had its share of false reporting in the past (if only by reporting what someone else falsely reported without checking it). (Oh, and he was with Sirius XM as a "White House Reporter" before joining Fox News Radio in 2017-did he get attaboys from the White House press corps then?)

Had Decker really investigated the Gateway Pundit, he'd have been able to instantly answer on what stories were anti-Semitic or anti-Hispanic-but he didn't and he couldn't. That means he's trying to be a pundit, not a reporter.

The lines are getting too blurred these days between political reporting and political commentary-and that's how so-called "fake news" happens. People so interested in impressing like-minded friends and bosses with their punditry read only the social media meme, and not the actual source article.

Decker might have gotten some "attaboys" from his drinking buddies in the press corps, but his harsh actions only show he's not committed to facts. And that's NOT journalism.

Some of us in the journalism business have been attacked for things we wrote or said on the air. That's fair. But what Decker did was the same as the schoolyard bully calling out to his friends, "Look at him! He's a freak!". It should be condemned by the White House Correspondent's Association and the media in general.

There's no place for bullying in the news. We all have our roles to play.

One final thing: This tweet has to hurt when Jon Decker reads it (boldface is mine). Feinberg knew who Wintrich was but in this era of "you gotta know my name" he didn't know who Decker was. Must mean he doesn't have much of an impact as a reporter?

‏Verified account @agfhome

Drama in WH press room between @lucianwintrich and Fox reporter I don't know. Not helpful for anyone. Let's stay calm everyone.

Why you should NEVER believe the political pundits...(well, MOST of them...)

2016-05-26T12:38:00.001-05:00

The Associated Press has put the nail in the coffin for itself and all the political pundits who were droning on and on that "Donald Trump won't have enough delegates" and the Republican National Convention was going to be a free-for-all for the nomination. It says that Trump now has enough delegates to get the nomination.

Yup, there's 300-plus delegates still up for grabs, no competition left, and Trump's won the nomination. Meaning the only fighting at the convention will probably be over some pieces of the party platform. Any honest political reporter will tell you that's not a meaningful battle, since the candidates rarely follow it at all (and since it's political action committees, not political parties, that control the campaigns via the purse strings).

I've been following the political scene in Iowa for over 30 years now, and even I was amazed how well Donald Trump had galvanized a coalition of former tea party activists, conservatives and more conservative Democrats to back his campaign. Turn off the recorders and put away the notebooks and just talk to people and they'd tell you how they wanted a clean break from professional politicians, and the ONLY choice and the only one with chutzpah was Trump.

Then, I started hearing over and over from Trump supporters that they were sick of "establishment" Republicans and their mounting of a "Dump Trump" campaign. Over and over I heard from average voters that if the "anybody but Trump" people succeeded in overturning their votes, they'd just stay home on election day.

Mostly, that anti-Trump movement was spearheaded by political operatives who weren't winning against Trump who wanted to raise and spend money in what anyone who'd talked to rank-and-file voters would know was a futile effort. Or talk show hosts who were desperate for media attention. And even Ted Cruz and John Kasich tried to lobby to be the face of that movement. Both are out now.

The pundits obviously didn't talk to people. And until the exit polls started slapping them in the face primary after primary, they kept up the "Dump Trump" talk. But those polls showed what I've seen in face-to-face conversations: that the electorate is tired of the status quo: politicians who've been in office better fight for their jobs and pandering's not working like it used to do. Just because you say the right things isn't important-it's "what have you done for us lately."

And that also applies to Democrats as well. All of the old "wedge issues" aren't working: Democrats have been touting an increase in the minimum wage as their ticket to election victory-only to find that a lot of Democrats are furious that the move to raise wages for entry-level employees won't raise THEIR wages. As one nurse told me, "I went $20,000 in debt to get my degree to get the salary I've got and someone off the street's going to make a few dollars less?"

Suddenly, that issue is off the table and the "big thing" is transgender bathrooms. Even that now is prompting backlash. As is the "free college education" movement, which is all but gone.

Hillary Clinton now is talking herself up as the "alternative to Donald Trump" but she's obviously not read the emails that say it's not working (and she's got more email problems than that!). She has trust issues with all but her most loyal supporters (many of whom are just vying for a political appointment later). Even liberal Democrats are asking her "what have you done for us?"

Note to all the political commentators and news anchors out there: It's not an old school election. If you haven't talked to people other than your friends you probably don't understand it. And attempts to score points with your friends by taking down Trump or Hillary could backfire because instead of uplifting you in your peers' eyes, it downgrades you in the eyes of the people that matter most-your audience.

Adventures in my SPAM folder

2016-04-21T15:11:00.001-05:00

Sorry, Ted Cruz: Most of your fundraising emails are ending up in my spam folder. Same for you John Kasich and for you, Hillary Clinton.

Every now and then, I peruse the spam folder in my gmail account just to see what's there. On occasion, I've found blatant efforts by scammers and have reported them to the appropriate officials. Lately, a lot of them are finding their email accounts deleted.

But I've noticed in recent months that it appears that Google's added politics to its spam filtration algorithm. More messages that I used to get from candidates like Cruz and others that begged for money to solve this problem or to "Dump Trump" now are ending up in my spam folder.

I've reached out to Google for more answers. But I'm not anticipating any, since they are about as likely to talk about the components of their algorithms as Hillary Clinton is to have an open news conference.

However, it appears that their spam filtration is getting much better at finding the "email marketing firms" and filtering them out. "Email marketing" is a marketing term for spam-people that send unsolicited emails for companies, or in this case, political campaigns.

Each of the campaigns that had missives in my spam folder used these marketing firms to achieve their goals. So the Google folks could simply be blacklisting those URL's or a combination of those URL's and a link to redirect the reader to another site. In any rate, they don't get read. (Except in my monthly glance-and-purge of the spam folder)

Even a couple of emails from the Republican Party of Iowa ended up in the spam folder.

I know that it must be Google's spam filtration, because many of those same emails show up in my corporate Outlook email inbox, not the spam filter. So some are getting through. But they're also noise that's being quickly deleted (except to note for posts like this!).

I'm not going to name the "email marketers" in question(although I pretty much have a list now). The campaigns know who they are. And they need to know that the biggest email service in the world (Gmail) isn't letting them through. That means the money you're paying them is wasted.

So, here's the challenge I'm laying down to the campaigns: Find a better way. Don't overload our email accounts with useless junk that obviously won't get you more than a few dollars. And for many of us, spam costs real money-we pay for storage on the servers, so you're adding to our expenditure.

Maybe there's a way to combine social marketing, radio advertising (I do work for a radio station so the shameless plug is warranted) and email to get money or message out. You won't be wasting your money just because a campaign guru told you you have to have an "email marketing" campaign out there to raise money.

Rebuttals to the left's "How to debate your Conservative Uncle at Thanksgiving"

2015-11-25T12:04:00.002-06:00

First of all, left-minded people don't operate on facts. They operate on talking points. So here's how to respond to their "talking points"...my rebuttal to the meme of "How to debate your conservative uncle..." that's been cut and paste by every liberal group and groupie around:

On the Issues: How to Debate Your Conservative Uncle this Thanksgiving!
SYRIAN REFUGEES
Conservative Uncle Says: “After what happened in Paris, we can’t afford to let any of the Syrian refugees into our country.”
You Say: The U.S. has highly effective and very rigorous procedures to check the background of each refugee. Unlike in Europe, it’s incredibly difficult for refugees from Syria to walk up to American soil. We have time to investigate, and we investigate very well, with the process lasting up to two years for each refugee. In addition, not one of the attackers in Paris has been identified as a Syrian refugee. Finally, it’s the right thing to do. More than two thirds of the refugees are women and children, and our country is built on the hard work of immigrants and people who came here in search of a better life.
[Sources: TIME outlines the vetting process for refugees; Mashable shows that not one of the Paris attackers has been identified as a Syrian refugee]

Your response if you're the "Conservative Uncle": Have you read either of those articles? The Time article just says the screening process is the most intense-it doesn't say it's fool-proof. And why does the US have to take them? Why couldn't the US just provide enough money to keep them where they have been settling-only in better conditions? And if you had read the Mashable article, you would have seen that authorities are looking at a Syrian passport that was stolen and used to get into France:

Speculation that led some to link the Paris attacks to the refugee crisis was spurred by the discovery of a Syrian passport near one of the suicide bombers. The passport was issued in the name of Ahmad Al-Mohammad, a 25-year-old from the rebel-held Syrian city of Idlib.

French officials have said that the bomber's fingerprints match a set taken in Greece in October when a person holding Al-Mohammad's passport entered the Greek island of Leros from Turkey. The man later entered Serbia, where authorities took fingerprints matching those taken in Greece. The following day, the man crossed into Croatia, according to a Serbian security official who spoke to The Associated Press.

However, it is not known whether the suicide bomber was indeed Al-Mohammad or someone traveling with a fake Syrian passport, which have become legion inside and outside Europe.

THAT doesn't sound too reassuring. Fake passports abound from Syria? No relations with Syria to tell if an individual is a Syrian or not? Hmmm.

EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN
Conservative Uncle Says: “Why are Hillary and Bernie talking about unfair pay for women, is that even real? Some women choose different jobs than men, it’s natural some of them pay less.”
You Say: The gap in pay between women and men is all too real. Women make just 78 cents for every dollar a man makes, and it’s even worse for African American women (65 cents) and Latinas (54 cents). Women are paid less despite their profession. Just two examples are women physicians and surgeons, who make just 62% of what their male counterparts make, and financial managers, a profession where women make just 67% of a male’s salary. If nothing is done to solve this crisis, women will not receive equal pay until the year 2058.
[Sources: Status of Women in the States, detailing the wage gap; Center for American Progress, showing wage gap by occupation]

Your response if you're the "Conservative Uncle": Again, you need to read what you cite. The chart shows that in 23 states, womens' pay has been increasing, while overall MEN have seen earnings losses in almost every state in the US. Was there a gap? Yes. But it's been equalizing out over the years as more women move into jobs they didn't traditionally take before which paid more.

BLACK LIVES MATTER
Conservative Uncle Says: “It shouldn’t be Black Lives Matter, we should say All Lives Matter!”
You Say: Black lives have been disproportionately marginalized in this country, from discriminatory laws, income inequality, and a biased criminal justice system. Using the phrase Black Lives Matter calls out the barriers to opportunity and justice Black Americans face every day. Think of it as saying “Black Lives Matter, too,” which unfortunately is a statement that needs to be made. In addition, many black adults grew up living with racist housing policies. Black people have the right to vote, but new restrictions are trying to make it harder to vote. And every day, black people continue to face a criminal justice system that treats them harsher than everyone else.
[Sources: The Atlantic discusses racist housing policies; Huffington Post covers voting restrictions; Vox details racism in the criminal justice system]

Your response if you're the "Conservative Uncle": Another story you apparently didn't read. The "racist housing polices" in the Atlantic article were started by Democratic administrations. Why hasn't President Obama reversed them?

DONALD TRUMP
Conservative Uncle Says: “At least he has the guts to tell the truth, you always know where he stands.”
You Say: No, not at all. Donald Trump lies, and he lies a lot. He has lied about immigrants, that Arabs cheered in New Jersey on 9/11, the race of victims of murder, and on and on. As for where he stands? Trump has flipped and flopped on issues such as Syrian refugees, taxes, and whether or not to cut military spending.
[Sources: Mother Jones for 26 of Trump’s lies; Washington Post for 6 of Trump’s flip flops]

Your response if you're the "Conservative Uncle": Shall we do a comparison of Trump's so-called lies and the whoppers that President Obama and Hillary Clinton have said? We could be here all day listing those.

STARBUCKS CUPS
Conservative Uncle Says: “Why did Starbucks take Christmas off their cups? Isn’t this just political correctness gone wild?”

You Say: You’re joking, right? This is a completely made up controversy. Don’t you have anything better to get upset about? (If that doesn’t work, click here to show him this list of Christmas-themed products offered by Starbucks, proving that a red cup is simply a red cup)

Your response if you're the "Conservative Uncle": You didn't answer my question. Why did they? It's not made up...nowhere on their cups are either Merry Christmas or even Happy Holidays. It's like if you don't acknowledge them, they'll go away. And shouldn't you be upset they're not selling Kwanzaa items?

We're in the part of the campaign where events alone don't work...but radio ads do

2015-11-24T14:16:00.001-06:00

One thing "true believers" in politics never want to admit has been proven by the polls: advertising works to improve your image.

Full disclosure: I work for a prominent media company and believe in the power of radio as an advertising medium. But I also believe that in Iowa, winning the caucuses is a ground game, that is full-on, master chess-level strategy. All the pieces have to be in place to come out of Iowa a winner in the presidential race.

It would appear that the GOP candidates were holding back on advertising spending, hoping that free media-debates, radio talk show hosts and events would generate enough "buzz" to propel them until the final days. It didn't work.

Donald Trump found out earliest about that. His support dropped as national media stories about supposed gaffes abounded the airwaves while news coverage of his strong statements was overshadowed by coverage of Ben Carson and others.

Trump late last month did a course-correction. He understood the idea of "maintaining your brand" and spent a lot of money on radio advertising to shore up his campaign image. Instead of doing free media interviews that would be picked apart for weeks, he spent a significant amount of money to tell his story on the air. You're still hearing that message on the radio today as you head to and from work in Iowa.

And, guess what? Quinnipiac University's latest poll shows Trump edging back with 25 percent of the vote and Carson, who didn't spend that much on brand maintenance, in third place.

The other person who figured it out after Trump is Ted Cruz. He has been a good chess master, timing the right endorsements (Rep. Steve King) with a strong radio advertising buy to shore up support. And he's gone from 10 percent support in October, to a statistical tie with Trump at 23 percent.

Radio is pooh-poohed by a lot of old school campaign people, but it works. It plants the candidate's message in the subconscious of the listener. It tells the person listening that "this candidate's substantial, because he's advertising on the radio." And you don't need "photo opportunities" to deliver the message-it's just as easily done in a recording studio or even a hotel room.

Rand Paul has been a late-comer to the radio airwaves, preferring interviews with radio talkshow hosts that he trusts. But his message appears to only resonate with his hard-core supporters. He had a pretty good debate appearance, but he's plateaued at 5 percent.
Carly Fiorina's at 3 percent and holding(down from 6 percent in October). Marco Rubio? He's stuck at 13 percent.

But there's hope for all of them. 58 percent of those polled last week by Quinnipiac said they might change their mind before the caucuses. That's a chance for someone else to pick up the supporters that are right now backing Ben Carson, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio now.

65 percent of Ben Carson's supporters said they could change their mind. 78 percent of Marco Rubio's could go to someone else. Over half of Ted Cruz's supporters could jump ship. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's got a lock on around 52 percent of his supporters-only 48 percent said they could change their minds.

It's a chance for someone else to capitalize on-if they do it right. But it's also a time we'll see some candidates giving serious thought to dropping out because they don't have the money to mount a serious media campaign.

Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich are quickly entering the point of no return. So far, they tried debates-that didn't work. They've tried appearances-they didn't get covered (probably because there was no NEWS in them, just the same stump speeches).

If I were managing their campaigns, I would immediately start figuring out what core message the candidate has that is resonating, what issues are most important, and target my advertising toward that end. And yes, most of it would be on radio. Because it works.

The polls show it: Time for a 4-person "top tier" GOP debate

2015-11-12T09:39:00.002-06:00

It's time to realize that there are two tiers of Republican presidential candidates, another tier of those that need to re-evaluate what they're doing-then set some different rules for taking part in the next debate.

If the candidates truly want a discussion of issues and their differences during the debates, the networks must do more of what Fox Business did Tuesday night. They dropped several candidates from their second-tier debate altogether. But I think we can go further.

Here's what I would suggest as the criteria for participation in each debate:

First debate ("second tier"):

Any candidate who fails to get at least 10 percent or greater in the average of state and national polls in the preceding 60 days and who receives greater than 1% support in the preceding 60 days' state and national polls' average.

Second debate ('first tier"):

Any candidate who receives 10 percent or greater in the average of state and national polls in the preceding 60 days.

The networks have largely used only national polls, which aren't done as often. Since Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and the early states will be the first test of the candidates, we should at least include their numbers in the average, which I have done in this list.

Let's look at the numbers. Here's a compilation (courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com) of the polls so far this month:

Poll averages from 11/1-11/12:

Trump-25.4%
Carson-23.1%
Rubio-12.6%
Bush-6.2%
Cruz-10%
Fiorina-3.7%
Paul-2.3%
Kasich-3.4%
Huckabee-2.2%
Christie-3.1%
Jindal-1%
Santorum-0.5%
Graham-0.6%
Pataki-0.1%

If you go by these numbers, here's what we'd have:

First debate: Bush, Fiorina, Paul, Kasich, Huckabee, Christie
Second debate: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz
No debate: Santorum, Graham, Jindal, Pataki

It is time to make the GOP presidential campaign the contest that it is. With four people on the second (main) debate, maybe it would be a chance to explore those candidates further and find out who really is qualified to be the next president of the United States.

Then, with six people in the first (secondary or early) debate, it would encourage those candidates to do their best to organize in the early states and really have a campaign, instead of a series of free media appearances.

"It's unfair!" someone will say, "you're not letting four candidates get up on the stage!" Life is unfair. Google "Harold Stassen" and research how many GOP debates HE was invited to when he ran for president 9 times! It may be hard for their supporters to understand, but so far, when they poll voters, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki-they're just not into you.

By the way, if a campaign doesn't like their numbers, MAKE THEM BETTER! Do the things that boost your numbers: Talk to people in the states that matter, get your message out, get organized! Show Republicans you actually care enough to run for president instead of coasting.

This might generate more interest in the second-tier debate and encourage the networks to hold both of them in the evening. Maybe the first tier on a Tuesday night and the second on a Wednesday night.

It also might mean that candidates start spending more time and energy in campaigning. Pataki's in danger of getting the Stassen award, as he's really only appeared close to home in recent months. How often have Iowans seen Lindsey Graham outside of the "cattle call" forums? Do they really care about becoming the next president?

Perhaps if this policy is adopted, we'll see a real campaign that involves the grassroots and has the candidates spending more time campaigning. It's hard-but you have to meet with voters one-on-one, and then be tested amongst your peers. This is the safest way to do that!

Time to take the debates away from the political parties

2015-10-29T09:59:00.001-05:00

It's time for the states to take the debates away from the political parties as both Democrats and Republicans have created a monster.

I had to laugh when I saw Reince Priebus criticizing CNBC's moderators for their questions in the Boulder GOP debate. Remember: Priebus' RNC was the co-sponsor of the debate. THEY CHOSE CNBC and had veto power over the moderators and questioners.

The liberal bias of the questioners was obvious to the party and its advance people. They chose CNBC, knew it would be the bastion of liberalism, and now Priebus should be forced to accept blame for it.

The Democratic party is of two camps: Those who back Hillary and only want a handful of debates and the rest of the party which wants the candidates to have the chance to really debate each other. The RNC is clearly in the Hillary camp.

The DNC and RNC shut out what could have been informative debates by bellying up to the bar with the cable networks and pushing away local groups that had less of a likelihood of being biased soundbite matches.

The political parties, with their ban on any debates other than the ones the party sanctioned, created the problem that candidates have today. It created the "cattle call" events that don't get the interaction between candidates that caucus-goers in Iowa and primary voters in New Hampshire need to push beyond the sound bites and the TV ads.

Remember, this whole charade we now call debates was created by the RNC and the DNC. They have too much power over what should be a local decision.

I don't like to complain-I like to find answers, so here's my suggestion: We go back to having anyone who WANTS to have a debate be able to apply to get one. Let the local media do it again like we used to do.

The Des Moines Register did a fairly good job of this in the past until they could no longer sponsor a debate alone. Let them have one-and let the candidates decide if they want to appear on it. Let other media outlets do a debate. If the League of Women Voters of Lyon County wants to sponsor a debate and can get the candidates to show up-let them.

Maybe we'd have 100 debates, but why not? The candidates are cris-crossing the state anyway. And maybe we'd see more clearly what candidates really care about Iowa and what candidates are just phoning it in.

We need MORE presidential debates, not fewer. If the candidates want to show up, let them do it! If they don't, then voters in Sioux Center could decide for themselves if the candidates who missed their debate really care about their issues. Don't caucus-goers deserve that information?

I would rather see debate moderators from Iowa in an Ottumwa debate asking questions from an Ottumwa perspective. Not watch a panel of people who're trying to score points with their friends in New York or Washington.

Nor should we have to wait til a few days before the caucuses for a debate in Iowa.

It's likely that the national media would only pick up a handful of these debates, and that's okay.

You'd see coverage about the Sioux Center debate all over the state of Iowa (because all the TV stations share coverage in Iowa anyway)-and that's more important for the Iowa caucuses than a debate in Boulder, Colorado. And, through the power of streaming media, you'd be able to watch the debates live or later if you're so inclined whereever you live in the US.

And memo to the candidates: You NEED that localized feedback to win the general election. So why not toss the RNC/DNC monopoly aside and let some real sunshine in?

Is it Hemp Oil...or Snake Oil?

2015-09-28T10:09:00.002-05:00

When the Iowa legislature started to hear emotional stories from parents of children trying to control their kid's seizures begging for legalization of hemp oil, I admit that I was moved. Who wouldn't empathize with parents who've tried numerous different methods to help their children...and who wouldn't want to stop those kids from having seizures?

But this nagging voice kept getting louder and louder...saying, "This stuff hasn't been tested and there's no standards. It could be harmful!!" Still, parents wanted to help their kids and legislation allowing parents to have and use the hemp oil to treat their child's seizures was approved.

And today The New Republic comes out with a new article called "The Wonder Drug" that reinforces my worries and adds a new one.

The article, whose author was diagnosed with epilepsy, highlights the fact that there is no uniform standard as to the quality of hemp oil manufacture. And that, contrary to all the industry claims, it can actually have high levels of THC and even heavy metals.

The author of the article points to how one manufacturer, when confronted with testing showing one sample with high levels of THC, claimed that it has been doctored by his competition. "We have standards," was the response-although those standards have not been clinically reviewed.

My new worry is that the author uses the plight of those who buy and use hemp oil as a reason that the federal government should remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I narcotics. The argument being, that if the Schedule I restriction were removed, hospitals and other medical labs would be able to test the efficacy of cannabidiol products...a false claim.

Any medical facility that wants to test or do research with marijuana or its derivatives need only apply for DEA and FDA approval for such testing. And those licenses have been granted for years. Back in 1973, I went to a podiatrist for a bad bout with athlete's foot and was kind of surprised to see his permit to research with marijuana on the wall of his office (he was no "hippie" and was about 60 years old to my 17, so I was truly surprised!).

The manufacturers of the CBD (hemp oil) products have consistently flouted licensing schemes and the need for stricter manufacturing controls and testing, saying they can test it internally. Do we really want to legalize a product where we don't know what's in it? Or worse, do we want to give our kids heavy metals and other contaminants that may be a part of the plant?

The article tries to use one problem--lack of standards--as a backdoor to legalization of all marijuana. Removing the Schedule I narcotic label from cannabis would be a national legalization step.

If the author was really trying to help parents of kids with seizures, she should have been looking at ways to spur more legitimate research into cannabidiol and the development of uniform standards under the existing licensing system. Or investigated to see if FDA and the DEA have licensed research for the manufacture and use of CBD. None is shown there.

While the majority of the article is good anecdotal information about CBD--and I recommend parents of children with seizures read it before experimenting with CBD, I must discount it as yet another attempt to win favor for total decriminalization of marijuana disguised as a heartfelt problem.

Truth is there is a way to solve the problem...and it's being done now. It's called licensed research. Why else would the Drug Enforcement Administration have a web page with forms to apply for research licensing? What's the real reason hospitals won't apply for a license? Could it be political?

Then that...not the Schedule I issue...should be solved first. Then we work on uniform standards and regulations, and then parents will know what their kids are taking won't slowly kill them.

The CNN Presidential Debate proved one thing...

2015-09-17T09:02:00.003-05:00

After enduring three hours plus of the 11-candidate "main event" debate, there were a couple of things that stood out:

CNN could have split the debate into two 90 minute debates with half of the candidates in each instead of one debate with four and one with eleven,
Candidates who holler "Jake! Jake!" or whoever the moderator's name is should be required to leave the stage.

Of course if that happened, the only people left at last night's CNN GOP Debate in Simi Valley, CA would have been Ben Carson and Marco Rubio. Everyone else shouted him down at least once when moderator Jake Tapper or the questioners (who didn't get to ask many questions) tried to move on to a different topic.

Three hours for a debate was too long...and people started to drift, based on CNN/Bing Pulse real-time stats that I was looking at. It wasn't that compelling. It also gave time for Hillary Clinton's campaign to erupt in mischief-like the time when Trump and Bush were arguing over speaking English, and Clinton's camp sent out 2 tweets en Español.

Another note to campaign managers: Don't ever agree again to do a debate in a venue that doesn't have air conditioning that can handle the crowd and the TV lights. Marco Rubio felt it first, and was seen mopping his brow with a handkerchief, but soon all the candidates-especially Ted Cruz, who apparently didn't want to mop off the sweat-showed signs of caving into the heat.

Having been a panelist at multi-candidate debates, I understand the difficulty in running them. Everyone wants to be "prime-time". But given the bounce that Carly Fiorina got on the first "kiddie-table" debate, maybe they're not so bad after all.

Maybe it's time to say that the top four candidates who get, say, an average of eight percent or more of the vote in the last two months of polls will be on the first 90 minute "prime time" debate, then the next four in rankings the second 90 minutes. Then the rest compete in the "happy hour" debate. Same amount of time allocated as CNN did, but breaks it up into manageable "chunks".

One thing the first "kiddie table" debate did was prove to those in that debate that it can make a difference for the presidential candidates. That's thanks to the performance of Carly Fiorina in the first one. She did well, and clawed her way to a spot in the second debate.

Enough of the logistics talk: The thing that upsets me most is that if you endured all of the debates, you didn't learn anything about the candidates' stands that you wouldn't hear going to the Iowa Faith and Freedom forum this weekend. By and large, if you've heard Scott Walker's stump speech, you didn't need to watch the debate, because he repeated it. Same for most of the others. They all fell back on their stump speeches.

Who won? Nobody. They all did what they had to do. Carly Fiorina had to keep her place in the higher tier to survive. Trump had to not utter a gaffe, Bush needed to seem more than a sleepy robot (who smoked pot when he was a kid, we now know), and Christie got to voice some conservative views that many people hadn't heard from him before. And so it went for all of them.

Who lost? Probably noone. Except the person keeping time. That person could've stayed home.

Bernie ties Hillary in Iowa...thanks to....

2015-09-10T09:52:00.001-05:00

It's not a good day for Hillary Clinton's Iowa campaign team.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll confirms the national polls showing Bernie Sanders has jumped up to statistically tie her in Iowa among Democrats.

Sanders is at 41 percent in the newest poll of likely Democratic voters, with Clinton at 40 percent. That's a 12 percent drop from July for Mrs. Clinton, and a 7 percent increase for Sen. Sanders.

It appears that a ghost candidate is causing Hillary grief: Joe Biden, who hasn't even announced he's in the race (but was "running" in my home town of Pittsburgh over the weekend-down the street anyway) has 12 percent support in the Quinnipiac poll. In July, he had 7 percent.

Trust appears to be the big issue in the campaign, and Iowa Democrats right now don't trust Hillary Clinton as much as they do Biden and Sanders. Biden gets a 91 percent trustworthy ranking, Sanders 86 percent. But only 64 percent of Iowa Democrats trust Clinton.

It appears that those who oppose Hillary Clinton are fairly adamant: The Quinnipiac poll finds that while 70 percent of Iowa Democrats don't find a candidate running for their party's nomination that they definitely wouldn't support, there are 11 percent who will never support Clinton and 5 percent that won't support Biden.

Iowans like to see and talk to a candidate-but Clinton's only appeared in controlled situations designed for the "photo opportunity" more than the lengthy town hall in-person discussions that caucus-goers are used to seeing. Her handlers are used to running Congressional or gubernatorial campaigns with speeches Iowans will hear excerpts of on the nightly news. Iowans want to talk one-on-one.

Couple that with the email issue that's all the national media talk about and a lack of a broad, emotional vision that Democrats prefer and she's vulnerable.

I have said this to many people and still stand by it: Vice President Biden is one of those campaigners who remembers everyone he meets and uses it. He can walk into a room and talk to people, ask about their families by name and make people feel like he's one of them. He tells them by his actions that he will fight for them.

Contrast that to Hillary Clinton, who is protected and distant and uses phrases like "I want to be your champion." That's codespeak to Iowans for someone who feels the need to help the "little people" not one of them.

No wonder the campaign says they'll try to be more "fun". But they don't get it. Democrats don't want "fun". They don't want to watch interviews on MSNBC. In Iowa they want to talk to Hillary Clinton and decide if she really cares about them.

Sanders does walk with pickets and appeared at the Iowa State Fair. Hillary didn't. And the Iowa Democrats who go to their caucuses know Joe Biden-and likely know someone he knows personally. They don't know Hillary. Thus they don't trust her. And that's fatal in this election.

The Des Moines Register learns what a bad editorial can cause

2015-07-24T23:33:00.000-05:00

"Recapping this week's headlines...

Des Moines Register editorial calls Donald Trump a "feckless blowhard" and says he should end his "bloviating campaign".
Des Moines Register Editor Amalie Nash, who is on the editorial board that writes the editorials, says she stands by the editorial that says Trump should drop out because "we need to have less vitriol and more thoughtful debate"
Trump's campaign refuses to issue credentials to the Register staff.

It happened really because the Des Moines Register in that editorial (which is supposed to be the opinion of the newspaper) sunk to the level of attacks it accused Trump of doing.

Suddenly, its editorial writers shun all "thoughtful debate" and issue an editorial that was more befitting of the Daily Kos than a respected newspaper.

It shocked me to read the original editorial that appeared on the Register website. It was obvious that the editorial staff was angered about Trump's remarks about Sen. John McCain (even though the whole premise of the editorial was DEAD WRONG. Trump DID NOT SAY "McCain's no war hero" as the editorialists wrote: if you don't believe me, check it on my YouTube Video of the entire speech, he said "John McCain's a war hero because he got captured.").

That's fine if they thought Trump should go because of that. But the editorial should have ended there. Instead, the editorial lowered itself into the gutteral world of political blogs and Twitter posts by calling Trump names like "feckless blowhard," "B-list celebrity", and calling his a "bloviating campaign."

And so, Trump reacted by calling the editorial "sophomoric". It was. The scrid was more high school than high ground. Then, he refused credentials for his picnic Saturday for Register reporters. Tit for tat.

So Ms. Nash again tries to say that the Register editorial writers and the reporting side are separate. But they are not: Amalie Nash is on the editorial board AND directs the news writing staff. She has stood by the editorial, and her paper is paying the price.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't have happened. But it's not without precedent on both sides of the political aisle. It's just the first time that the current editorial board has gotten the reporting staff in trouble in this way.

If you turn your Pulitizer-winning newspaper into a political blog like the Daily Kos, expect the treatment the Daily Kos would get from the Trump campaign.

Donald Trump, for all that he is and isn't, represents many Republicans, independents and even some Democrats who're tired of hearing the same sing-song speeches by politicians who promise "Hope and Change" and then bring neither. They see him as someone who doesn't mince words. They're angry-and he fights back for them while others appear to cower.

The 2016 elections may be decided by these "angry voters" that have been talked down to by a lot of Republican and Democratic politicians these days. The least we owe them is to allow their champion to play out in the political theater that is the presidential campaign. And we owe all of the candidates due respect in our discussions.

Trump slightly more popular than McCain

2015-07-22T13:04:00.000-05:00

The headlines Monday from the "usual suspects" of anti-Republican newspapers and media outlets read, "Trump Is Toast", "McCain Attacks Hurt GOP" and versions of the same. Even the Des Moines Register printed an editorial proclaiming that Donald Trump should drop out of the GOP presidential race because of his harsh comments about Arizona Sen. John McCain.

But Trump's comments at The FAMiLY Leader's Presidential Leadership Forum last Saturday don't appear to have hurt his Iowa support. There's a reason for that which the pundits fail to understand because reporters don't spend a lot of time with people anymore. And if they do, they don't listen to people except for other pundits.

Recently, I went to a lesser-publicized Trump event in Winterset, where "The Donald" appeared at the Warren County Republican Party's annual fundraiser. There was a capacity audience at Winterset High School's cafeteria of people interested in hearing what Trump had to say. I listened to the talk before the event and when he appeared at the John Wayne Museum in Winterset for a photo session benefitting the Warren GOP.

His tough talk, his insistance on a return to American greatness in the world, and his determination to pave his own way outside of the Washington types have struck a chord-with many of the same people who supported Ron Paul in Iowa last time around. Except for pro-marijuana types (Paul had a LOT of them) who don't like his anti-drug stand.

The Trump supporters in Iowa love his "in your face" comments on everything. They see it as a show of strength. Kind of like Ronald Reagan would have been if he grew up in the Bronx.

After years of capitulation to government by small and large business, and watching one side of the political spectrum gain power by saying they want to raise taxes on those who make more money than they do, Trump epitomizes what they see as the American Dream that is being erased from our culture: Work hard, negotiate hard and succeed.

He's more than just a TV star who's now a presidential candidate: He's someone who says what he thinks and doesn't back down when the usual political attack machine goes into full gear.

Think about it: All the attack-types threw everything at Trump for his anti-illegal immigration remarks and a week later his words rang true when a five-time deportee shot and killed an innocent woman in California.

The latest dust-up comes largely because media types are getting lazier and don't listen to the subject of their stories or editorials. Even Fox News Radio's stories said that "Donald Trump said John McCain wasn't a war hero." But I was there-and that's not what he said.

Pollster Frank Luntz had questioned Trump's harsh criticism of Sen. McCain in recent days. Trump recounted how it was McCain who threw the first punch by characterizing supporters at a Trump rally as "crazies" in a New Yorker article. When Mr. Trump refused to back down, Luntz said that McCain was "a war hero", with the implication being that should silence all criticism of him.

Trump said "McCain's a war hero because he got captured. I prefer people who weren't captured."

Callers to WHO Radio's Jan Mickelson program this week were divided on whether Trump should've made the comments, but there were a number of callers who said that John McCain shouldn't get a pass that allows him to wrongly criticize people while not getting anything back. Being a veteran and a war hero is one thing, making political statements, they said, was another.

It's interesting that some of the same people blasting Trump for that statement were questioning McCain's POW history during his presidential campaign. There's several first person accounts of the Vietnam air battle which question whether McCain was following orders. Still, he endured extreme pain because of the crash and is due the honor of war hero that Trump didn't deny.

And now there's a Rasmussen Reports poll which shows that people regard Trump and McCain about the same: 52% of likely Republican voters view Trump at least favorably in a poll that was conducted after the Ames, IA event. 51% have a favorable view of McCain-a statistical tie.

Sorry, Des Moines Register editorial board, Trump's not stepping down...in fact, he's stepping up. His visit to the US-Mexico border today shows he's continuing to push the envelope on illegal immigration.

We'll see who wins in the long run-but for right now Trump has struck a chord in Iowa.

Why is everyone blaming Branstad for the $55 million item veto?

2015-07-06T11:43:00.000-05:00

Governor Terry Branstad's been attacked over the weekend, accused of everything but killing the neighbor's cat for his item veto of around $55 million in funds, primarily for education.

My question is, aside from political bias, why is everyone putting the blame on Branstad? He's the one who stuck by his word, saying that he didn't want to use one-time money to fund ongoing programs.

It's the Iowa Legislature-both the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House that really are guilty of avoiding the tough issues and throwing it all in the governor's lap in an unsightly mess.

Branstad told the legislature that he wanted a two-year budget, which Senate Democrats have staunchly refused to do. Instead, Republicans caved and crafted some "one time money" for the Board of Regents and local schools that may or may not be there in the coming years.

The blame should be more heavily assigned to the legislature. They knew the money would be item vetoed by the governor. Democrats counted on it, Republicans went along with it in order to go home.

Some even dared the Governor to pull out his item veto pen to make them look tough. Rep. Dave Heaton, who sits as the subcommittee chair that puts together the DHS budget decided to protect himself instead of taxpayers. Hammered at home by unions upset about losing employees at the Iowa Mental Health Institute in Mt. Pleasant due to Branstad's plan to close it and Clarinda by the end of the year, Heaton cut a deal with the governor's office: Keep Mt. Pleasant open until the end of the year and I'll go along with your plans on Clarinda.

But the Health and Human Services budget was never finalized in public. Members of the budget subcommittee complained on the House floor they were never invited to meetings. Heaton merely floated his plans to the members and they signed off on it. And when he put the final budget together, instead of keeping the Mt. Pleasant unit open only til the end of the year, he funded it for a full year and marked Clarinda for closure. Why wouldn't the governor zap that budget, when Heaton didn't keep his promise?

Other lawmakers followed suit. Money was taken from the surplus to give one-time appropriations to the various state universities to help ease their budget pain. Instead of resolving school funding for two years, lawmakers appropriated one-time cash.

From the cheap seats, it looks like Democrats didn't really have any skin in the game, except to show they "did something". They held out for the extra money so they could blame Branstad in the media. Republicans just wanted to go home and were tired of an impasse, So they passed the one-time money with a wink and a nudge, expecting the governor to do the dirty work.

But shame on the newspaper outlets who have reporters at the statehouse that didn't feel the need to mention this until the paragraphs below the fold. Because it should be senators and representatives in the hot box, asking why they couldn't just put together a two year budget?

Beer bucks: A way lawmakers can have it all

2015-05-27T07:33:00.002-05:00

It appears there's a bit of an impasse over funding in the Iowa legislature. Democrats want to spend more on education and other programs, Republicans say there's no more money. I have the answer.

Well, actually, the Tax Foundation found it for me. An easy way to raise LOTS of money? Increase the beer tax.

The Tax Foundation did the numbers, ranking the states according to the tax per gallon of beer.

Iowa is 31st, while our neighbors to the frozen north, Minnesota, are 11th in the nation. In Iowa, the beer tax (seen in the map below courtesy The Daily Signal) is only 19 cents a gallon. Minnesota's is 47 cents a gallon.

And that pales (pale ale?) with the number one state when it comes to beer taxes, Tennessee, home to dry counties, has a tax of $1.29 per gallon.

So, lawmakers that were working at a feverish rate earlier this year to approve a boost in the gas tax for roads can have their beer and drink in the profits, too. Raising the beer tax to, say, North Dakota's level of 39 cents a gallon would double the rate. Iowa gets about $13 million a year in beer taxes, so if the rate were doubled, another $10 million or so would be available. Go to Minnesota's 47-cent-a-gallon rate and even more money would be available.

Then, by boosting liquor prices (in Iowa, we make right now $263.4 million in revenue from liquor sales) by two percent, we'd gain another nearly $5 million.

Think of it: it's a vote that won't fail. In hard economic times, what do people do? They drink booze a lot more. When they make more money, life becomes more complicated and stressful, and...you guessed it, people drink more. It's a win-win revenue situation.

So that increase you pass today's the revenue guarantee the state needs. So the argument over a couple percent boost in school spending seems less shaky.

Shall we drink to this?

It's no wonder Chris Christie's not in Iowa much these days

2015-05-06T07:49:00.001-05:00

Everyone's doing the story today that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's still in the lead in the latest poll of Iowa Republicans by Quinnipiac University-but that's not the REAL story.

The real story is that another governor, Chris Christie, is universally disliked by Iowans. Christie was the first choice as the GOP presidential candidate by only 7 percent of Iowans...only besting Jeb Bush by two points.

Christie's obviously decided that New Hampshire is a better pick for him to win the Republican presidential nomination, as he's spending considerable time there, giving speeches and holding events. Of course, it's a quick jump there and back home. But his absence in Iowa is showing.

Christie is disliked by 56 percent of the Iowans polled. And 20 percent said they would definitely NOT support him for the Republican nomination.

Jeb Bush did worse, getting only 5 percent support and 25 percent who said they definitely wouldn't support him. But the former Florida governor isn't disliked as bad as Christie (45 percent disapproval rating),

Maybe Christie should come to more than the safe political events. He appeared at the Iowa Ag Summit, but was absent from the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition event. Donald Trump's campaigning in Iowa more than him.

There's another surprise in the Quinnipiac poll: Rand Paul's lack of steam in the state. He saw his disapproval rating go up three points (the percentage of people who would not support his candidacy), from seven to ten percent.

And he's hit a plateau in support, with only 13 percent both in the recent poll and the one done in February.

Candidates who've picked up support since February: Cruz, Rubio.
Candidates stuck in the bottom tier: Santorum, Perry, Jindal, Bush, Christie and Ben Carson.

You hate the gas tax increase? Here's some money..

2015-02-24T08:33:00.000-06:00

The latest copyrighted Iowa Poll by the Des Moines Register (you know, the one that got the 2014 election spot on?) shows that 50 percent of Iowans don't want a gas tax increase-so that means lawmakers have to offer a financial incentive to you to ease the sticker shock.

Democrats who've gotten money from the lobby groups backing the gas tax increase have a couple of ideas. The biggest one is an amendment to the bill being debated today which would not only hike the gas tax, but would hike the earned income tax credit. I'm sure it will be argued that will lower the pain threshold for the state's lower income people.

Then, Republican Rep. Greg Heartsill's proposing a direct rebate for all Iowa taxpayers. It's in the form of a special tax credit of $75 if you're single or $150 if you're married filing jointly.

The only problem with both scenarios is that after-the-fact tax credits don't help struggling families at the time they're struggling. For most Iowans, the scenario is this: They're still going to have to cut other expenses to make up for the higher cost of gasoline that lawmakers are poised to pass. Because I don't get to wait and pay the difference between the tax and the credit-I pay it up front at the pump. I'm still going to pay $3.00 a gallon at the pump instead of $2.13 a gallon now (once you add an expected increase in the federal gas tax).

But it's the current logic of legislation: give people tax credits and they'll be happy. That may be true for companies, who have people they pay to massage the tax code to create benefits for them. But to the Average Joe or Jane, it doesn't help. They can't get the credit at the pump, so they still lose money right away. The pain is still there.

Sen. Julian Garrett also pointed out that for many counties, what residents pay in the added ten cents a gallon won't equal what they get back to fix roads. Most of the roads are under city and county control, not the Iowa DOT, yet the DOT and cities get the lions' share of the funds. Garrett says he's seen estimates that Warren County would pay about $2.5 million in taxes and get $880,000 back.

It would be easier for counties with road woes to go to the taxpayer for a local option tax that would go exclusively for road repair and replacement. But that's not what the "asphalt lobby" wants-they want the money now, and without voter input.

This is an issue that requires more thought and time.

1. Cities and counties need to identify the roads they are intending to fix with the added money and publish that list and the timetable for them to be fixed. We need to see item-by-item the problems, their estimated costs, and the times to fix them, not just more money. It's along the lines of President Reagan's "trust but verify".

2. An easily-searchable database of structurally deficient bridges and below-par roads needs to be published so people can hold their local representatives accountable.

3. Money should only go for identified, budgeted projects-not just the generic "critical road projects" language in the bill since that can mean anything. Intent language in the bill might make lawmakers feel good, but without penalties for misuse, it's just fodder for lawyers later on.

A Twitter post recently told me we should trust local officials to spend the money wisely. Really? If they have used the money they get from the road use tax fund wisely, why is Iowa so high on the list of crumbling roads and bridges?

The Iowa DOT at least puts out a multi-year road plan and tries to stick to it-and publishes it for all to see. That's not happening for cities and counties. Try finding out how they spent the money. It will take a long time.

Finally, if you want to see who's gotten money from the backers of a gasoline tax increase, I've prepared a spreadsheet with all the details, and I'll put it on WHOradio.com in our news stories on the gas tax. Here's the condensed version of who got campaign contributions from the organizations whose lobbyists declared in favor of the gas tax bill as of this past weekend (from the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Disclosure database and the legislature's list of declared lobbyists):

LEGISLATOR	POL. PARTY	CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GAS TAX SUPPORTING GROUPS
Sen. Joe Seng	DEMOCRAT	$8,000.00
Sen. Michael Breitbach	REPUBLICAN	$2,750.00
Rep. Bruce Hunter	DEMOCRAT	$4,000.00
Rep. Gary Worthan	REPUBLICAN	$4,100.00
Rep. Clel Baudler	REPUBLICAN	$6,850.00
Rep. Dennis Cohoon	DEMOCRAT	$6,000.00
Rep. Rob Bacon	REPUBLICAN	$3,350.00
Rep. Greg Forristall	REPUBLICAN	$3,350.00
Rep. Dan Huseman	REPUBLICAN	$7,350.00
Rep. Sally Stutsman	DEMOCRAT	$3,100.00
Rep. Mark Costello	REPUBLICAN	$7,700.00
Rep. Vicki Lensing	DEMOCRAT	$2,500.00
Sen. Bob Dvorsky	DEMOCRAT	$13,000.00
Rep. Jack Drake	REPUBLICAN	$6,350.00
Rep. Brian Meyer	DEMOCRAT	$3,250.00
Sen. Tim Kapucian	REPUBLICAN	$7,000.00
Rep. Josh Byrnes	REPUBLICAN	$24,000.00
Sen. Bill Dotzler	DEMOCRAT	$12,500.00
Rep. Rick Olson	DEMOCRAT	$2,750.00
Rep. Kirsten Running-Marquardt	DEMOCRAT	$2,750.00
Sen. Dan Zumbach	REPUBLICAN	$5,500.00
Sen. David Johnson	REPUBLICAN	$5,750.00
Rep. Helen Miller	DEMOCRAT	$5,050.00
Rep. Brian Moore	REPUBLICAN	$21,500.00
Rep. Cecil Dolecheck	REPUBLICAN	$3,450.00
Rep. Dave Maxwell	REPUBLICAN	$12,000.00
Rep. Jarad Klein	REPUBLICAN	$5,750.00
Rep. Mary Wolfe	REPUBLICAN	$1,750.00
Rep. Jerry Kearns	DEMOCRAT	$2,750.00
Sen. Ray Rozenboom	REPUBLICAN	$2,500.00
Rep. Jim Lykam	DEMOCRAT	$7,350.00
Sen. Wally Horn	DEMOCRAT	$6,750.00
Rep. Lee Hein	REPUBLICAN	$7,250.00
Sen. Jason Schultz	REPUBLICAN	$2,500.00
Rep. Dave Deyoe	REPUBLICAN	$6,000.00
Rep. Dawn Pettengill	REPUBLICAN	$6,000.00
Rep. Todd Prichard	DEMOCRAT	$3,950.00
Rep. Sharon Steckman	DEMOCRAT	$2,500.00
Rep. Bruce Bearinger	DEMOCRAT	$8,285.00
Sen. Mark Segebart	REPUBLICAN	$2,250.00
Sen. Rob Hogg	DEMOCRAT	$8,250.00
Sen. Joe Bolkcom	DEMOCRAT	$9,000.00
Rep. Kevin Koester	REPUBLICAN	$4,250.00
Sen. Randy Feenstra	REPUBLICAN	$6,250.00
Rep. Matt Windschitl	REPUBLICAN	$9,100.00
Sen. Tony Bisignano	DEMOCRAT	$9,750.00
Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa	REPUBLICAN	$5,000.00
Rep. Dave Jacoby	DEMOCRAT	$3,250.00
Rep. Deborah Berry	DEMOCRAT	$1,500.00
Rep. Bobby Kaufmann	REPUBLICAN	$13,250.00
Rep. Jake Highfill	REPUBLICAN	$4,850.00
Rep. Chris Hall	DEMOCRAT	$10,750.00
Rep. Nancy Dunkel	DEMOCRAT	$8,600.00
Rep. John Forbes	DEMOCRAT	$8,500.00
Sen. Tom Courtney	DEMOCRAT	$2,250.00
Rep. Thomas Sands	REPUBLICAN	$14,100.00
Sen. Amanda Ragan	DEMOCRAT	$25,750.00
Rep. Megan Jones	REPUBLICAN	$3,600.00
Sen. Steve Sodders	DEMOCRAT	$3,500.00
Rep. Jo Oldson	DEMOCRAT	$3,750.00
Rep. Pat Grassley	REPUBLICAN	$4,350.00
Rep. Patti Ruff	DEMOCRAT	$7,600.00
Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell	DEMOCRAT	$1,500.00
Rep. Marti Anderson	DEMOCRAT	$1,500.00
Sen. Jake Chapman	REPUBLICAN	$3,000.00
Sen. Tod Bowman	DEMOCRAT	$32,000.00
Rep. John Landon	REPUBLICAN	$3,350.00
Rep. Dave Heaton	REPUBLICAN	$5,150.00
Rep. Bob Kressig	DEMOCRAT	$5,335.00
Sen. Chris Brase	DEMOCRAT	$500.00
Rep. Lisa Heddens	DEMOCRAT	$2,500.00
Rep. Dave Dawson	DEMOCRAT	$1,750.00
Rep. Scott Ourth	DEMOCRAT	$13,500.00
Rep. Mary Gaskill	DEMOCRAT	$1,500.00
Sen. Mary Gaskill	DEMOCRAT	$1,500.00
Rep. Curt Hanson	DEMOCRAT	$6,500.00
Sen. Amy Sinclair	REPUBLICAN	$600.00
Rep. Chris Hagenow	REPUBLICAN	$10,000.00
Rep. Peter Cownie	REPUBLICAN	$10,750.00
Sen. Matt McCoy	DEMOCRAT	$10,000.00
Rep. Joel Fry	REPUBLICAN	$3,000.00
Rep. Chuck Soderberg	REPUBLICAN	$4,350.00
Rep. Abby Finkenauer	DEMOCRAT	$2,000.00
Rep. Chip Baltimore	REPUBLICAN	$9,350.00
Rep. Charlie McConkey	DEMOCRAT	$4,600.00
Rep. Mark Smith	DEMOCRAT	$27,920.00
Rep. Linda Upmeyer	REPUBLICAN	$29,000.00
Sen. Rich Taylor	DEMOCRAT	$1,000.00
Sen. Rita Hart	DEMOCRAT	$14,850.00
Rep. Guy Vander Linden	REPUBLICAN	$2,600.00
Rep. John Wills	REPUBLICAN	$2,450.00
Rep. Tedd Gassman	REPUBLICAN	$4,000.00
Sen. Mike Gronstal	DEMOCRAT	$38,700.00
Sen. Charles Schneider	REPUBLICAN	$2,850.00
Sen. Rick Bertrand	REPUBLICAN	$9,000.00
Sen. Julian Garrett	REPUBLICAN	$2,000.00
Rep. Dan Kelley	DEMOCRAT	$2,400.00
Sen. Jeff Danielson	DEMOCRAT	$2,000.00
Sen. Bill Dix	REPUBLICAN	$28,500.00
Rep. Dean Fisher	REPUBLICAN	$2,500.00
Rep. Kraig Paulsen	REPUBLICAN	$35,250.00
Rep. Mike Sexton	REPUBLICAN	$2,750.00
Rep. Gary Carlson	REPUBLICAN	$7,000.00
Sen. Roby Smith	REPUBLICAN	$7,750.00
Sen. Jack Whitver	REPUBLICAN	$4,850.00
Sen. Pam Jochum	DEMOCRAT	$6,250.00
Sen. Herman Quirmbach	DEMOCRAT	$5,000.00
Rep. Ron Jorgensen	REPUBLICAN	$2,100.00
Rep. Sandy Salmon	REPUBLICAN	$2,500.00
Rep. Timi Brown-Powers	DEMOCRAT	$1,185.00
Rep. Norlin Mommsen	REPUBLICAN	$13,000.00
Rep. Rob Taylor	REPUBLICAN	$1,850.00
Rep. Quentin Stanerson	REPUBLICAN	$13,250.00
Rep. Walt Rogers	REPUBLICAN	$2,750.00
Rep. Ralph Watts	REPUBLICAN	$350.00
Sen. Chaz Allen	DEMOCRAT	$17,000.00
Sen. Tom Shipley	REPUBLICAN	$3,750.00
Rep. Darrel Branhagen	REPUBLICAN	$8,250.00
Rep. Pam Thede	DEMOCRAT	$2,500.00
Sen. Bill Anderson	REPUBLICAN	$2,600.00
Rep. Greg Heartsill	REPUBLICAN	$1,250.00
Sen. Kevin Kinney	DEMOCRAT	$10,000.00
Sen. Brian Schoenjahn	DEMOCRAT	$250.00
Rep. Liz Mathis	DEMOCRAT	$250.00
Rep. Larry Sheets	REPUBLICAN	$250.00
Rep. Linda Miller	REPUBLICAN	$350.00
Sen. Tim Kraayenbrink	REPUBLICAN	$2,500.00
Rep. Stan Gustafson	REPUBLICAN	$200.00
Sen. Mark Chelgren	REPUBLICAN	$1,000.00
Rep. Terry Baxter	REPUBLICAN	$100.00
Rep. Ken Rizer	REPUBLICAN	$250.00
Rep. Todd Taylor	DEMOCRAT	$5,150.00

The rush to raise the gas tax doesn't mean bridges will be fixed

2015-02-18T22:46:00.001-06:00

There was an obscure story on the Associated Press wire today that points to the reason why raising the gas tax won't mean Iowa's bridges will suddenly get fixed. Why? Because there's no accountability for the new money.

There is nothing to force counties and communities in Iowa to use the extra windfall from the increase in the fuel tax to actually fix the bridges and roads that are crumbling. How can I say that? Because the news story I mentioned shows it.

The story is how a 98 year old bridge over the Cedar River in Waverly's been closed by the city engineer because it's in such bad shape. This isn't the story of some suddenly-discovered damage to the structure, because the story says "a panel studied the bridge" TWELVE YEARS AGO and looked at options for the structure. BUT THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOTHING.

But in closing the bridge, they're expecting the state will provide funds to replace it. That way the community's neglect of the structure will be magically fixed because the bridge is closed.

Folks, this is how it works. Cities and counties are allowing bridges to fall into disrepair, because they would rather spend their county share of the road use tax fund on new roads to new businesses, not on old structures. But if they let them get so bad they have to close them, they can ask the state to step in and pay for a full replacement.

The added gasoline tax the legislature appears poised to approve will just pad the new road budgets for cities and counties. And the bridges and roads that are really bad won't get replaced.

There's only one way to stop this: Demand that before a vote to approve any increase in the fuel tax that the Iowa constitution be changed requiring that any expenditure by cities and counties of road use tax funds be budgeted in advance and only allow a small percentage for the construction of new highway or widening of roads. First priority should be the bad roads.

So stop your legislator from drinking the "we gotta do this for the kids" Kool-Aid. Because local governments haven't done it for the kids for over a decade and there's no incentive to do it with more money unless there's accountability.

Only then will this cycle of ignore, spend the new money, and beg for more because things are falling apart, end.

'Tis the season in the Iowa legislature

2015-02-18T07:47:00.002-06:00

In the next few days, you're going to be hearing about legislation that Iowa lawmakers introduced to appease this constituent or that group-all legislation that probably has little or no chance for passage this year.

But we are happy when a state senator or representative puts our idea into bill form. We feel validated, and expect that idea will get its day before the legislature. Truth is, most won't.

Last Friday was the day the bill drafters in the Legislative Service Bureau have to dread-it was the deadline for individual state legislators to request bills be drafted. That means everybody under the sun has been bending the ear of the members of the House and Senate trying to get their bills on that list.

So the staff that has to write and proofread the bills that are requested are hard at work.

And you get bills like Senate File 249, which is sponsored by two Republican state senators, Mark Chelgren of Ottumwa and Jack Whitver of Ankeny. It would lower state income taxes by about ten percent across-the-board. Or Republican Sen. David Johnson of Ocheydan's bill, SF 241, which would require all bicycles to replace their rear reflectors with a light. Or the bill, HF 302 Democratic Rep. Ruth Ann Gaines and others that would rename the Commission on the Status of African Americans to the "Commission on the Status of Africans and African Americans".

None of these bills have much of a chance of seeing Gov. Terry Branstad's desk. And most won't even escape "file 13", the legislative ether created when a bill is assigned to a subcommittee and then never discussed. They die after the deadline for bills to be passed in committee expires-and that's March 5th.

Now there are some bills that special interest groups worry about because they could see passage. Leaders of the opposing parties worry as well, fearing they'll have to deal with the issue when they'd rather not.

That's why you have Senate Resolution 10, a resolution by Democratic Senators Joe Bolkcom of Iowa City, Bob Dvorsky of Coralville, Rita Hart of Riceville, Rich Taylor of Mt. Pleasant, Tony Bisignano of Des Moines, and Jeff Danielson of Cedar Falls. It's a resolution "affirming Iowa's commitment to net neutrality." (Actually, it's a resolution affirming the Iowa Senate's support of President Obama's actions on net neutrality, which are coming under fire from every big internet company around.)

Don't expect it to either help the President or be adopted in the Iowa House. It's a political statement by majority Democrats in the Iowa Senate.

And you have HF 293, a bill requiring voters to show proof of identification at the polls. It's a big GOP issue and is sponsored by a bunch of Republicans, but won't see the light of day outside the Iowa House.

Sen. Joe Bolkcom has a bill that will delight farm groups, because it will make them check the weather forecast before they spread manure to make sure that it's not going to rain.

The Iowa legislature can't get agreement on how much money to fund education next year, but the Iowa House State Government committee can find time to put out a bill for House debate that deals with fantasy sports payouts.

As the late Linda Ellerbee used to say, "...and so it goes." Lawmakers look like they're working while the real important stuff waits til the final day or days of the legislature to be finalized behind closed doors.

Who's speaking for Iowans in the gas tax debate?

2015-02-16T11:52:00.002-06:00

In the legislature, you have county supervisors, city councils, asphalt contractors all putting pressure on members of the Iowa House and Senate to raise the gas tax to "pay for Iowa's crumbling roads and bridges", but my biggest gripe is that, except for Iowans for Tax Relief (which has lost its power in the legislature these days), noone is speaking for the people the gas tax boost will affect.

It sure looks like a great thing when gasoline prices are the lowest they've been in awhile, doesn't it? Politicians love to pass tax increases that they think you won't notice. But a ten cent hike in the gas tax won't take effect until July. And it's likely that Congress will add another 20 cents a gallon to that before they leave this year to quiet the same loud voices being heard in Iowa's rotunda.

So that $2.09 a gallon ethanol blend (E-15) out there would become $2.30 a gallon. But in reality, gasoline routinely goes up in price in the spring and summer months, thanks to EPA rules that require a different blend of gasoline for this area-one that takes more refining and, as such, costs more. So lawmakers could be taking $2.50 a gallon gasoline and making it dangerously close to $3.00 a gallon again with their actions.

Face it, Iowa families have needed a break from the escalation in prices that's occurred these days. Saving nearly a buck a gallon on gasoline has helped families put money into other things they had to curtail to fill up at the pump. Who's thinking about that when the rush is on to jerk up the gasoline tax?

And what about the money they're getting now? What are the county plans to use the extra money?Other than projects funded through the Iowa DOT, there's been little accountability on how counties and cities spend the hundreds of millions they get from the current gasoline and fuel tax.

Try it: Go to PolkCountyIowa.gov and try to find out how much money was spend on bridge and road repairs, versus new roads that were built for economic development projects. You can easily find what air quality projects the county has, but not the amount spent on fixing roads.

Who's asking Adair County's Board of Supervisors why they have 101 of the county's 313 bridges listed as structurally deficient. Especially when the state treasurer says they got $2,731,623.48 in road use tax funds from July of 2013 to June of 2014. They got a total of $7.3 million dollars from 2012 to this past June.

Or Jasper County, which has the second-highest number of structurally bridges in the state? 130 of its 396 bridges are listed on the US DOT bridge inventory as structurally deficient. How much of the $11.4 million the county's received in road use tax funds from 2012 to date have gone to reduce that number?

Worst in the state is Plymouth county, where 186 of its 525 bridges are listed as structurally deficient. Who's asking the supervisors there how much of the $13 million they've received in road use funds since 2012 have gone to bring that number down?

If I were a legislator right now-Democrat or Republican, I'd be demanding some answers to these questions.

Republicans: How are you going to answer the complaints later this year from your local economic development folks when they start telling you that manufacturers are moving to surrounding states that have cheaper fuel taxes? Or talk to your business council when they ask why Iowa's not getting expansion projects because the cost of moving goods in and out has shot up so dramatically?

Democrats: What are you going to tell struggling families that have had trouble making ends meet when it's going to cost a bunch more to fill up their vehicles? When they can't afford to even drive their kids to events because they have to choose between a fill-up and food?

Right now it seems like everyone's talking about more money as the solution without clearly identifying the problem. Every time someone starts complaining, there's a study and status quo. Now that Iowa's in the bottom rung of states (mostly due to county and city infrastructure) on roads and bridges, shouldn't there be some public accountability? Remember TIME-21? That was supposed to take care of the roads and bridges by shaving money off of registrations. What happened to that money?

Here's hoping some Iowa legislators will think less about the noise raised by their county boards of supervisors and the asphalt lobby, and start asking them questions. Why do you need this money? What in specific have you been doing with the money taxpayers have given you? Why isn't that enough? Where's your road budget online?

If they can't...or refuse...to provide specific answers-and to make road spending transparent-then they don't deserve any additional money, because it'll still go to waste with no accountability.

Iowa needs a plan, a budget and accountability if we're to "protect our children"...not just more money. It didn't fix the bridges the last time and it won't do it now.

Big decision by the Des Moines Water Works board

2015-02-05T08:58:00.002-06:00

When the Des Moines Water Works board of directors voted to proceed with a lawsuit against three Iowa counties, it was a decision that showed that instead of being a public utility that tries to help its customers, they are run by environmental activists who will commit utility dollars to prove a point-a decision absent all fiduciary concern.

The issue is the lawsuit that has been threatened against three Iowa counties for their failure to reign in nitrate contamination from drainage ditches under their control, which run into the Raccoon River.

This lawsuit has been threatened for nearly two months now with no action-not even the required 60 day notice that the Water Works must send before it sues the counties.

In the meantime, even US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has urged the board to take a different action. Vilsack knows the federal government is spending billions to try and find a way to feed the nation and the world and curtail any contamination of waterways. You don't see the EPA applauding Bill Stowe's lawsuit threat at all.

Also, the Water Works fails to tell everyone that the costs it says it is trying to save are just the costs of having potable water. Plus, by taking water from the river and treating it, the Water Works itself is changing the ecology of the waterway, possibly depriving other users of the water with resources. So it is actually worse in that regard than the counties it is suing, because the water that it processes ends up in the Des Moines River after processing by the sanitary sewer district. Its water, it could be said, pollutes the Des Moines River through its very usage.

As Vilsack pointed out, it's better to work with federal authorities to curb the nitrates in the rivers. There are federal grants out there that can pay a good portion of the cost of nitrate processing, so the cost need not be borne by the utility. Has Stowe told the board that? Are reporters from the Des Moines Register covering the issue pointing out that Stowe has admitted that the Water Works nitrate reduction equipment needs replacing anyway?

The vote will be telling, to see if the board agrees with its activist CEO that they should spend money for attorneys to sue the counties. After all, the attorneys will get their money for sure-the Water Works has no guarantee that it will get a dime, nor any satisfaction from the suit.

But the suit will give farmers the opportunity to show the nation what they are doing to solve the problem. Instead of suing the fertilizer companies (which it would appear they would do if Stowe were their CEO), they are working with the government to find the science and practices that will allow farmers and the water to coexist.

A Lincoln, Nebraska state senator, Ernie Chambers, once sued God asking for a permanent injunction against natural disasters. If we'd had Bill Stowe instead of L.J. McMullen, would that have been the course of action?

A wise board of directors will ignore the political ideology of a few and order its management to work with the federal government to fix the problem. This threatened lawsuit doesn't do that.