Bleeding Heartland - Front Page

New comments from Iowa Senate GOP leader on sexual harassment claims

desmoinesdem — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:58:00 GMT

Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix told WHO-TV last night that former Senate GOP communications director Kirsten Anderson was fired solely because of her job performance, and that it's a coincidence her employment was terminated the same day she submitted documentation of alleged sexual harassment at the statehouse.
Over the weekend, Dix's top staffer Ed Failor, Jr. had strongly denied Anderson's assertions about a hostile work environment at the capitol. After Governor Terry Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds both suggested the Iowa Senate should investigate the harassment claims, Dix spoke to WHO-TV himself about the controversy.

Dix said his staff told Anderson early in the legislative session that she needed to improve her performance as the senate Republican caucuses communications director. Some of Anderson's duties included writing news releases and legislative updates for constituents. Dix said, "We've worked with her over the last couple months. Her performance on the job hasn't met the standards of my expectations."
And because Anderson's performance hadn't improved, Dix said, "She had been notified her job could be in jeopardy. It should have not come as a surprise to her that her employment was terminated."
Dix said he doesn't tolerate harassment in the office. He said, "From my perspective, we've been offering a calm and professional climate for her to work in."
He added that he wasn't aware of Anderson making any previous complaints about inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Dix responded, "No. Not to my knowledge. Not with me or my staff."
When asked why Dix decided to fire Anderson the same day she presented her document to him alleging her complaints, he responded, "The two are unrelated."

I don't know what transpired between Anderson and Republican legislators and Senate staff over the past five years. For what it's worth, several people who have either worked or spent considerable time at the statehouse have independently contacted me since Sunday to say that they find Anderson's description of the work environment credible.

It's possible that Senate GOP leaders had real concerns about Anderson's work. The Iowa Senate Republicans website isn't as informative or up to date as the corresponding site for Iowa Senate Democrats. I find it hard to believe it's a coincidence that she was fired on the same day she raised the sexual harassment complaints, though. The session is almost over. Why not end her employment quietly after lawmakers go home?

Speaking to WHO-TV's Dave Price on Sunday, Anderson declined to name any specific Republican lawmakers or staffers who allegedly have made inappropriate comments to women. Price's latest report on this story quotes Anderson as saying she will identify them "soon." Presumably she will need to be specific in the claim her attorney plans to file with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

P.S. - As of Tuesday afternoon, the Iowa Senate Republican website had taken Anderson's name off the staff list and removed the "related headlines" box from its front page (see screen shot below).

On Sunday and Monday, links to news reports about the sexual harassment allegations kept appearing in that box. The "latest news" section of the front page still links to statements from April 9 and April 15.

Kim Painter recognized as "Harvey Milk Champion of Change"

desmoinesdem — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:05:00 GMT

Johnson County Recorder Kim Painter is among ten openly LGBT elected or appointed officials the White House will honor tomorrow as "Harvey Milk Champions of Change." Painter became the first openly gay or lesbian non-incumbent elected to public office in Iowa in 1998. She has since served as leader of the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women and president of the Iowa State Association of Counties. A strong supporter of marriage equality, Painter hated having to deny marriage licenses to LGBT couples before the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. She believes those couples' act of civil disobedience in 2004 started "the conversation about marriage equality here in Iowa." She married her longtime partner soon after the Varnum v Brien ruling took effect.

Yesterday Painter credited Bill Crews and other Iowa public officials who came out as incumbents before she ran for office. Having lived outside Iowa during the 1990s, I was not aware of the important role Crews played in the LGBT community. He was appointed mayor of Melbourne (Marshall County) in 1984 and re-elected four times. Frank Myers wrote last year,

Although most in Melbourne were aware that Crews and his partner were gay, it was not a topic discussed by anyone until 1993, when Bill and Steve attend the the March on Washington of that year for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation. Crews had written an opinion piece for The Des Moines Register, effectively coming out on a grand scale, that was published in their absence. When the two men returned home they discovered graffiti scrawled on the walls of their home: "Get out," "No faggots," "Melbourne hates gays." A portion of the home's interior also had been vandalized. This became a news story covered in nearly every market nationwide.

Click here to read an interview with Crews about the experience. During the 1990s, Melbourne was "believed to be the smallest town in the United States to have an openly gay mayor." Crews was re-elected for the last time in 1995 and moved to Washington, DC in 1998.

Harvey Milk famously urged his "gay brothers and sisters" to come out for the good of the whole community. Painter, Crews, and others including State Senator Matt McCoy have helped make Iowa a more inclusive place.

Bonus Iowa political trivia: Painter was one of 31 Iowans on the LGBT leadership council supporting Hillary Clinton for president in 2007.

Branstad appoints new Veterans Affairs director

desmoinesdem — Tue, 21 May 2013 12:15:00 GMT

Governor Terry Branstad announced yesterday that he has appointed retired Col. Robert King to run the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs. A press release with background on King is after the jump. He should have no trouble being confirmed by the Iowa Senate.

King replaces former State Representative and retired Brig. Gen. Jodi Tymeson. Earlier this month, the governor appointed Tymeson to a newly-created management position at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown.
Press release from the governor's office:

Branstad names Col. Robert King as head of the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs
May 20, 2013
Gov. Terry Branstad today announced that retired Col. Robert King will serve as head of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Branstad-Reynolds administration. Col. King replaces Gen. Jodi Tymeson, who was recently named the new Chief Operating Officer at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown.
Col. King, 64, served in the Iowa National Guard for nearly 36 years prior to his Sept. 2004 retirement. During his last fifteen years of service he handled media relations, command information and community relations for the Iowa National Guard.
"I want to thank Gen. Tymeson for her outstanding work in this position and I wish her well at the Iowa Veterans Home," said Branstad. "We are excited to welcome Col. Robert King as the new head of this important department. I have known Col. King for a number of years, and appreciate and understand how much passion and enthusiasm he will bring to this job. Veterans will have no bigger advocate than Col. Robert King."
Col. King's military awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal (4th Award), Army Commendation Medal (4th Award), Army Achievement Medal, Outstanding Volunteer Service Award, Humanitarian Service Medal, and brevet promotion to brigadier general. For a number of years, Col. King has played a major role in coordinating the Veteran's Day Parade at the Iowa State Fair. Colonel King was inducted into the Iowa Broadcaster's Association Hall of Fame in 2004.
"I'd like to thank Governor Branstad for this opportunity to serve veterans and their families, and I'd like to thank Jodi Tymeson for her dedicated service to Iowa's veterans," said King. "There are a number of state, county and local veterans organizations throughout the state, and I look forward to working with all of them to support Iowa's veterans and their families. Throughout my many years working on behalf of veterans, I know first-hand how Iowans appreciate the service and sacrifice of veterans and their families, and we will do our best to serve them."
"Our administration will work closely with Col. King to ensure we understand and are able to address the needs of those who served our state," said Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds. "We respect our veterans and their families, and it was important for us to have someone who will be available and responsive to their needs. Col. King will be a hard worker on behalf of Iowa's veterans."
King currently resides in Urbandale with his wife, Joy. He has two sons and four grandsons.

New hope for Medicaid expansion in Iowa?

desmoinesdem — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:29:00 GMT

When news broke last week of a tax compromise skewed toward business, I wondered why Senate Democrats would agree to pass that bill without progress toward Medicaid expansion, one of their top priorities. Governor Terry Branstad was saying legislators should adjourn after approving a budget, education reform and the tax deal, returning later this year for a special session on health insurance coverage for low-income Iowans. In my opinion, Democrats would be insane to give Republicans what they want on taxes now, hoping for Medicaid expansion later.

Today several signs point toward a possible deal on Medicaid coverage before the end of the legislative session.
Senate Democrats have made several concessions in the hope of bringing Republicans around on Medicaid expansion. On May 14, Rod Boshart reported on Republican efforts to push Medicaid negotiations off until later this year. Fortunately, one of the Senate Democratic negotiators quickly rejected the idea.

"We have a lot of work to do to iron out the differences between the House and the Senate and between my office and the Senate on that issue," Branstad said during his monthly WHO-AM radio call-in show Tuesday evening. [...]
"I think it may just take a little longer," Branstad told his call-in audience. "Certainly I think we can agree to bring them back once we get that worked out. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to hang around until we have the issue resolved. It is a complicated issue."
Legislative Republicans expressed a desire to move ahead with the state budget, education reform and property tax relief resolutions in the waning days of the regular 2013 session, but looking to a special session as a way to buy more time to negotiate a compromise arrangement. [...]
"It's more important that we arrive at the right answer than we arrive at a quick answer," said House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha. "We're going to work on trying to finish things up, but it's more important that we've got it right. [...]
"As far as I'm concerned, there won't be a special session," said Sen. Jack Hatch, D-Des Moines. "All of our work will be done here now, it has to be completed.
"We see daylight between the Republicans and the governor's plan. His financing is unacceptable to Republicans and to local governments and to local mental health agencies and providers," he added. "To think we can come back into special session and have an agreement is pretty unrealistic and pretty naïve."

Today, Branstad sounded more willing to make a deal. O.Kay Henderson posted the audio and highlights from his regular weekly press conference.

"...We're going to continue to talk to both House and Senate members about this and...it's just like the other things we've been working on. If we're going to get something resolved, nobody's going to get their way totally."
About 52 percent of the cost of Branstad's "Healthy Iowa Plan" would be covered by state government and 48 percent by the federal government. Democrats counter that by expanding Medicaid to cover more uninsured Iowans, the federal government will cover 100 percent of that cost for the first three years and then 90 percent after that.
"That is one of the things that we're willing to consider, provided there's assurance that if the federal dollars are reduced, the Iowa taxpayers don't get stuck," Branstad says.

Anyone who has followed this issue closely will recall that Senate Democrats agreed two months ago to provide such assurances to Branstad and GOP lawmakers. From Senate President Pam Jochum's comments on March 14:

Following the lead of other Republican governors in other states, we have offered to re-evaluate Iowa's participation in Medicaid expansion if the federal government does not keep its promise.
In other words if it would renege on its commitment of paying 100 percent of the cost for the next three years and then of course it's on a sliding scale that by 2020 it's 90 percent participation by the federal government and 10 percent participation by the state government.
The language we suggested would protect Iowa taxpayers from any risk, and it would address the Governor's concerns.
In short, if the federal government's sky falls, WE will be off the hook as a state.
I want to mention, and we should all remember, that the federal government has never, never failed to meet its obligations to Medicaid in nearly its 50 years of existence.

Today Branstad repeated his desire to "make sure we protect the taxpayers of Iowa against the uncertainty of the federal government." He indicated that only federal officials can provide the guarantees he's looking for.

Republican State Representative Dave Heaton, who expressed major concerns before voting to pass Branstad's Healthy Iowa Plan in the Iowa House, was among those sounding more optimistic today.

Branstad indicated he was "willing to consider" trying to merge the competing plans as long as Iowa taxpayers were protected in the process and certain "ownership" provisions were required of health-care recipients to help improve outcomes and hold down costs.
Rep. Dave Heaton, R-Mount Pleasant, said Branstad's assurances signaled progress to him. Sen. Jack Hatch, D-Mount Pleasant, said he saw positive signs that the governor, Senate Democrats and House Republicans were "all now generally on the same page," a development that could accelerate prospects for compromise.
"I don't think we're that far off now that we're moving," Hatch said. "We've kind of shed some of the old skin, and I think there are some real opportunities for us now."

Both Heaton and Hatch serve on the conference committee working toward a compromise.

Here's hoping U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius can give Branstad a way to save face quickly. Medicaid expansion could make a huge difference for more than 100,000 Iowans, perhaps as many as 150,000 people. A bad deal on taxes might be a price worth paying if Branstad comes around on Medicaid.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: According to the governor, the Branstad administration is "moving forward with the paperwork required by the federal government for the creation of the Healthy Iowa Plan" while legislators work toward a compromise. I doubt Iowa would receive a waiver for a plan that covers fewer people at greater cost. In March, Senator Tom Harkin predicted that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would reject Branstad's approach.

FBI involved in Bachmann campaign investigation

desmoinesdem — Mon, 20 May 2013 16:18:00 GMT

The FBI is interviewing witnesses to alleged illegal payments involving staffers for Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign, Kevin Diaz reported for the Star Tribune over the weekend. One of the key witnesses, Bachmann's former chief of staff Andy Parrish, recently submitted a sworn statement to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, leading to the appointment of a special investigator for an ethics complaint against Republican State Senator Kent Sorenson.

Follow me after the jump for more details.
From the Star Tribune article by Diaz:

St. Paul attorney John Gilmore, who represents former Bachmann chief of staff Andy Parrish, also confirmed that his client is among those being interviewed by the FBI as a witness. "Andy Parrish has been contacted by the FBI for purposes of an interview," Gilmore said. "That has been set up for next week and Mr. Parrish will cooperate fully."
[...]
One source familiar with the FBI inquiry said an agent from the bureau's public integrity section expressed interest in campaign finance allegations contained in a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint brought by whistleblower Peter Waldron, a Florida pastor who worked on the Bachmann presidential campaign in Iowa.
The allegations in Waldron's FEC complaint in January focus on Bachmann's top lieutenants, rather than on Bachmann herself.
One allegation suggests secret payments to Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, a Milo Republican who served as Bachmann's campaign chairman before the 2012 Iowa caucuses. Another is an allegation of improper payments from Bachmann's independent political organization, MichelePAC, to longtime Bachmann aide Guy Short, then serving as the campaign's national political director.

Bleeding Heartland posted the full text of Waldron's FEC complaint here.

Waldron submitted a similar complaint to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee, which was ready to punt until Parrish submitted an affidavit corroborating some of Waldron's claims.

In related news, Kevin Hall reported at The Iowa Republican on signals that Bachmann may settle the lawsuit former staffer Barb Heki filed last summer. Heki accused Sorenson of stealing a homeschooling group's e-mail list from her personal computer. Her lawsuit also accused several senior Bachmann campaign staffers of defaming her by blaming her for the misuse of the e-mail list.

Iowa Senate GOP staffer alleges hostile work environment, sexual harassment (updated)

desmoinesdem — Mon, 20 May 2013 00:30:00 GMT

Kirsten Anderson lost her job on Friday afternoon as communications director for the Iowa Senate Republicans. Today she went public alleging that she was fired after documenting sexual harassment by GOP state senators and staffers. WHO-TV broadcast Dave Price's exclusive interview with Anderson Sunday morning, and I recommend watching the whole clip at their website. After the jump I've posted highlights from Anderson's claims and a denial from Ed Failor Jr., a top staffer for Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix.

As a bonus, I enclose below your laugh for the day: a screenshot from the official Iowa Senate GOP website as of 7 pm on Sunday. The front page includes a link to the Des Moines Register's blog and the headline, "Iowa Senate GOP staffer claims she was fired for protesting sexual harassment; Dix aide issues strong denial." I wonder whether Anderson was the only person on that staff who knew how to update the website. It's also possible that the Des Moines Register political blog headlines automatically feed into that box on the front page, and no other Senate GOP staff checked the site over the weekend.
Anderson told Price that she had worked for the Iowa Senate Republicans for five years, and that problems with the workplace environment predated her tenure there. She asserted that on Friday morning, she asked Senate GOP leadership and staff to work with her on "changing the workplace environment," providing documentation of problems. She said,

Anderson: Women especially should not have their body parts scrutinized, objectified. People should not be ridiculed or mocked for simply the color of pants that they're wearing, and those sorts of things were taking place at the Capitol.
Price: So, they were, when you say that, were they talking about you, your physical attributes?
Anderson: Not only me, but other people, other women.
Price: And who was saying this?
Anderson: Various people. Not only staff, but legislators as well.

Anderson declined to name names of Republican staffers or lawmakers who allegedly said "things that would make you blush," "objectifying women." She added that the sexual harassment policy in place at the statehouse is "nearly 30 years old" and needs to change.

Anderson said she had discussed problems in the workplace environment with a GOP Senate staff supervisor before Friday, but nothing was done. She told Price that she never brought up this issue directly with state senators who allegedly made the inappropriate comments.

Ed Failor Jr. joined the Senate GOP staff shortly after Bill Dix became minority leader late last year. Speaking to the Des Moines Register's William Petroski today, Failor vehemently denied Anderson's allegations.

Dix aide Ed Failor Jr. said Anderson was terminated after failing to improve what he described as substandard work performance.
"I can assure you that under Senator Dix's leadership, sexual harassment is not and will not be tolerated," Failor said.
Anderson, 34, had worked for the Iowa Senate GOP Caucus since 2008, and been the caucus communications director during the 2013 session. She had previously worked for nearly two years as a staff assistant to former U.S. Sen. Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, and worked for five years as executive director of the Iowa Architectural Foundation. [...]
Dix aide Failor said Sunday that Anderson was terminated only after her substandard work performance had been documented over an extended period of time.
"She was given an opportunity to improve her work performance and it did not improve," Failor said. As a result, she was dismissed, he said.

Anderson told Price that when she was fired, they did not give a reason for terminating her employment.

If Anderson was so incompetent, I wonder why she wasn't let go after Dix became minority leader. That's a natural time for staff turnover. I also wonder why leadership would fire her so close to the end of the legislative session. Why not keep her on for another week and then quietly let her know they'll be hiring someone else for next year?

Here's the screen shot I mentioned above. I don't know exactly how long the link about the sexual harassment story was on the front page. It's not the world's most up to date site--other "latest news" on the front page was more than a month old ("Senate Republicans Call for True Tax Reform," Posted on April 15, 2013). If keeping the website current was one of Anderson's responsibilities as communications director, she could have done better. According to Henderson's report, "Anderson was responsible for the maintainance of the website." The Iowa Senate Democrats' website is updated much more regularly.

As of Sunday evening, Anderson's name hasn't been removed from the list of Senate GOP staffers on the website.

MONDAY UPDATE: It appears that the "related headlines" box on the front page of the Iowa Senate Republicans website has an automatic feed. As of 10 am on May 20, two of the five headlines in the box were about the sexual harassment story.

Governor Terry Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds commented on the allegations during their Monday morning press conference. Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson posted the audio and the highlights.

Governor Terry Branstad said this morning her allegations "should be investigated by the senate."
"It's a separate branch of government, so I think they have the right procedures in place and I think they should investigate and determine whether or not...these allegations are true or not," Branstad said during his weekly news conference. [...]
"I served in the Iowa Senate for two years, in '09 and '10. I don't currently serve in the Iowa Senate," Reynolds said during this morning's news conference. "I believe that we need to ensure that we have a safe and secure environment in which to work in. This is a legislative matter and I have confidence that the senate will address the situation in a timely manner."
Reynolds was asked by a reporter if she "experienced any evidence" of the kind of hostile work environment Anderson described during her television interview.
"When I was in the senate, there were 18 members in the senate caucus. I was very involved and engaged in our caucus, working with the team and I didn't experience any, no," Reynolds replied.

SECOND UPDATE: Anderson has retained an attorney, Michael Carroll, and will file a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Jennifer Jacobs reported for the Des Moines Register,

In an interview with the Register Monday, Anderson, a married mother of a toddler son, said she complained about a pattern of male senators and staffers making sexually-charged comments. She made her complaints verbally more than once, as early as last fall, she said.
Anderson described the incidents, but didn't want to name names, saying this "is not about public embarrassment. My goal is to change the work environment at the Capitol." [...]
Anderson's lawyer, Michael J. Carroll, told the Register: "She and other women that work in and around the environment were victims of ... coarse and grotesque sexist conduct on a regular basis. Even though some of it was not directly targeted at her, she was exposed to it - and exposed to it for years."
The worst part, Carroll said, is that she was fired seven hours after she wrote about the inappropriate conduct in a memo. "That's retaliation and that's against the law," he said. [...]
[Anderson] said that at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, she handed Senate Republican Caucus Staff Director Eric Johansen a two-page typed memo that acknowledges his complaints about her work, but says she suspects his criticism was actually about the fact that she stood up to "the boys' club atmosphere in the Iowa Senate Republican Caucus."
Anderson's job was to write news releases, social media content, web content, newsletters and other materials.
Her memo says the criticism of her work was unfair because it centered on drafts of her writing, not the final versions, and that it was hard for her to learn important legislative details when she's excluded from key meetings.
Anderson wrote that she was willing to improve, but that she'd had no formal complaints about it in her five years as communications director. Her supervisors had "a sudden change" after she complained in November and December about the use of sexually-explicit, demeaning comments about women at work. In late January, her supervisors in a sit-down meeting told her she's "not to use contractions or plural possessives" and that she should use "fewer unnecessary words."

As of 7 pm on May 20, the Iowa Senate Republicans website includes a link to Jacobs' blog post in the "related headlines" box on the front page.

Senate President Pam Jochum told journalists on Monday that Senate leaders will review the chamber's sexual harassment policy this summer.

Jochum said at this point, there's nothing to investigate since Anderson hasn't filed a complaint.
"It really is a personnel issue," Jochum told reporters.
Mike Marshall is the secretary of the senate, a senate employee who helps manage staff as well as the debate in the senate. He told reporters today that the senate's written policy regarding sexual harassment is "about 20 years old" and there have been periodic training sessions with videos detailing what is and isn't appropriate in the workplace.
"It has been, in the past, provided for staff on a mandatory basis and then, individual senators on a voluntary basis," Marshall said.

THIRD UPDATE: Democratic State Senator Steve Sodders commented on May 20 that it was "strange" to see the governor call for an investigation of sexual harassment in the Iowa Senate, given that he rejected legislators' calls for an investigation of alleged problems at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown.

Tax bargain is "Christmas for Walmart," raw deal for most Iowans (updated)

desmoinesdem — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:30:00 GMT

Iowa House and Senate conference committee negotiators appear to have struck a grand bargain on taxes. I haven't seen any press release on the agreement yet from Senate Democrats, so I don't know whether there is consensus in the caucus for the deal. But both Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Minority Leader Bill Dix are backing the compromise, as is House Speaker Kraig Paulsen.

After the jump I've posted commentary on the deal and a memo outlining the details. The bulk of the tax cuts will go to commercial property owners, but I see no evidence that the majority of small business operators (who rent rather than own property) will benefit at all. Democrats are getting the earned income tax credit increase they've been trying to pass for years, and that's an important issue. However, the same vulnerable populations that benefit from the earned income tax credit will bear the brunt of the state and county service cuts that will likely happen as the commercial property tax reductions are phased in.

I haven't had my eye on property taxes during this year's legislative session, because I assumed no compromise would be found between the very different bills favored by Iowa House Republicans and Iowa Senate Democrats. A recent analysis by the Iowa Fiscal Partnership showed that the Democratic approach was better for commercial property owners "with less than $622,500 valuation in property," while larger businesses (such as national retailers or real estate trusts) would do better under the GOP plan. That must-read study also undercut the case for any urgency to reduce property taxes in Iowa.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. UPDATE: Added some comments from Iowa legislators and information about a loophole that could disqualify a lot of commercial property from the tax reduction.
Senate File 295 has had a long, bumpy road through the legislature this session. A few weeks ago, House Republicans and Senate Democrats appeared to be miles away from a compromise.

Earlier this week, rumors about an imminent deal started circulating. Yesterday the Cedar Rapids Gazette posted a good summary of the deal by Rod Boshart, and the Des Moines Register posted a report by William Petroski and Jason Noble. I enclose below a four-page memo with more details.

Governor Terry Branstad said he looks forward to signing the bill, and his communications director Tim Albrecht said the governor won't use his line-item veto power to block any portion of the bill. In 2011, Branstad twice used the line-item veto to remove the earned income tax credit increase from broader bills on taxation.

Peter Fisher, research director for the Iowa Policy Project, released this statement yesterday on behalf of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership:

It's Christmas for Walmart and McDonald's, which will happily receive property-tax breaks that they don't need, while their low-wage employees receive a better Earned Income Tax Credit.
This Christmas tree will grow bigger with each passing year, leaving less room in local budgets to respond to needs. The EITC expansion is important to working families - including 37 percent of all Iowa kids - but in the balance of who benefits from this package, it is a very small ornament.
If there is any question as to who benefits, Iowans should note that the EITC boost will be $35 million when fully phased in, compared to about 10 times that for property owners.
As we noted last month, the only justification for dealing with commercial property taxes was a political one. It has never been based on either an economic or competitive need to cut commercial property taxes in Iowa. So we have a politically derived package that will meet the demonstrated need to improve the EITC but leaves open new challenges to the support of critical public services in our state.

I highly recommend reading the Iowa Fiscal Partnership's recent report on property taxes and previous writings on the earned income tax credit.

I sought comment from Jon Muller on the tax deal. He is a long time Iowa public policy anlayst who worked in Governor Tom Vilsack's administration and is now partner in Iowa School Finance Information Services. Muller pointed out that many small business owners are tenants who won't see a cent of the property tax cut the large property owners are getting. He noted,

[W]hen you increase property taxes, the landlord will be unable to pass on the tax increase to the tenant.
Property tax is a wealth tax.
It's not a rent tax. [...]
Rents will stay the same. A larger portion of rent will go to the landlord, and a smaller portion to the government. But rents will stay the same.

In Muller's view, this compromise is great for real estate trusts but not for most small business owners. Their rents are determined by market supply and demand.

Muller also pointed me toward this research from a peer-reviewed economics journal, which indicates that rents are not affected by property tax rates. Two identical houses on the same street but in different school districts may have very different property tax rates, but the rents will be the same. From the perspective of the commercial property owner, Muller said,

On one side, you will pay a low price, but pay high taxes.
On the other side, you will pay a high price, and low taxes.
Your return on investment will be identical on either side of the street.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action called on Iowa lawmakers to vote down this tax deal.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund (CCI Action Fund) members blasted a tentative legislative deal to cut corporate property taxes after a confidential memo was leaked Thursday, saying the deal will severely limit the ability of state and local governments to provide basic public services without raising taxes on everyday Iowans.
The confidential conference committee report on Senate File 295 shows state government stands to lose $383.6 million in annual revenue by 2024, while local governments would lose $115.7 million by 2024.
CCI Action Fund members also say the bad deal allows current and future budget surpluses - created by spending cuts years ago - to be squandered in the form of a small income tax credit rather than being reinvested in state programs that have faced cuts.
"Iowa CCI Action Fund members support expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families, but not as a horse-trade for a bad deal on income and corporate property taxes," said CCI Action Fund member Larry Ginter, an independent family farmer from Rhodes.
"If this bad deal goes through, we will either see cuts to vital public services or more taxes on family farmers and everyday people, or both. Shame on any legislator that votes for this thing. Bipartisanship should not come at the expense of good policy that puts people first."

UPDATE: Speaking to the Des Moines Register on May 17, Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Joe Bolkcom said he hasn't decided yet whether to support the bill. Iowa House Democrat Tyler Olson said he is also undecided.

Senator Jack Hatch, a possible candidate for governor next year, hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

Sen. Jack Hatch, D-Des Moines, said he was finding it difficult to back the tax package while Democratic efforts to expand the state's Medicaid program were being ignored by Republicans.
"For me, I have to see that there is real effort on the part of the Republican leadership in the governor's office to recognize that there are 300,000 Iowans without health insurance and we are trying to get a majority of them in the circle," Hatch said. "To dismiss that at a time that we are providing significant tax breaks to big corporations and good tax breaks to moderate families as well is a consideration that I have to resolve in my mind."

Only a handful of Democratic votes would be needed in the Iowa Senate if the 24 Republicans all support the compromise.

Meanwhile, Jon Muller posted the following comment on his Facebook page Friday afternoon:

Warning: For Iowa Policy Wonks
Curious Side Effect of Taxing Apartment Buildings Like Houses......
Taxable value will fall for all the affected local governments, right? Cities, schools, counties, community colleges, etc. Right? Wrong. One type of local taxing authority will be unaffected. Tax Increment Financing Districts. The taxable value of TIFs are based on the "Growth in Assessed Value". The "Assessed Value" of multi-family buildings is not being reduced by the law. Only the "Taxable value". Clear as mud, right? Think this thing has been thoroughly thought through?

Some Iowa cities have put quite a lot of commercial property in TIF districts in an effort to stimulate economic development. Finding out they don't qualify for the property tax cut will be a rude awakening for some business owners.

CORRECTION: The property owners will still get the tax cut, even in a TIF district. But in a TIF district, property taxes collected on the "base" property value (before creation of the TIF district) go to local institutions including cities, counties, school districts, and community colleges. At the same time, taxes collected on the "increment" (increase in property valuation since the TIF was created) are reserved for an economic development authority.

According to Muller, the language in this tax deal suggests that all of the reduction in taxable value will be applied to the "base" part of the TIF area. Conceivably, local economic development authorities might be able to collect as much in property taxes as before from properties in TIF districts, while school districts, community colleges, city and county governments have to make do with less revenue.

Here is the four-page memo leaked yesterday.

New IA-01 candidate speculation thread

desmoinesdem — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:10:00 GMT

It's time for a new thread on the open first Congressional district seat. So far former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy is the only declared Democratic candidate. Former State Senator Swati Dandekar formed an exploratory committee last week. State Senator Jeff Danielson of the Cedar Falls/Waterloo area has said he's keeping his options open. I expect a decision relatively soon after the legislative session wraps up.

Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon "is nearly ready to announce" her candidacy, Rick Smith reported. She was first elected to the council in 2007, switched parties in 2009, and was re-elected in 2011. Cedar Rapids plaintiff's attorney Dave O'Brien may also run, Jennifer Jacobs reported. O'Brien's background is similar to Bruce Braley's before his first campaign in 2006.

State Representative Tyler Olson, who also chairs the Iowa Democratic Party, hasn't ruled out running for Congress, but some Polk County Democrats believe that if he runs for higher office next year, it will be against Governor Terry Branstad.

On the Republican side, Cedar Rapids business owner Steve Rathje and Dubuque business owner Rod Blum are already seeking the nomination in IA-01. Once the legislature adjourns for the year, my hunch is that a Republican lawmaker will join the race. State Representative Walt Rogers of the Cedar Falls/Waterloo area confirmed earlier this year that he's thinking about it.

The Iowa Republican's Kevin Hall reported last month that former Secretary of State and Cedar Rapids Mayor Paul Pate is "90 percent" likely to run for office in 2014. I think Pate would be a strong general election candidate but might have trouble winning an IA-01 GOP primary. It's also possible that he may run for Secretary of State again if Matt Schultz goes for the open U.S. Senate seat.

Current Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett is running for re-election and seems to have ruled out the IA-01 race, judging from his recent comments to Todd Dorman.

After the jump I've posted the latest voter registration numbers for the 20 counties in IA-01. Linn County is the largest by population, but it doesn't dominate the district. About 30 percent of the registered Democrats, 28 percent of the Republicans, and 27 percent of the no-party voters in IA-01 live in Linn County.
The voter registration totals come from the Iowa Secretary of State's website.

Active voter registration numbers as of May 2013

IA-01

County	Democrats	Republicans	no-party voters
Allamakee	2,194	4,263	3,096
Benton	4,622	4,965	7,409
Black Hawk	29,053	20,583	31,781
Bremer	3,796	5,015	7,326
Buchanan	3,842	3,129	6,364
Clayton	3,403	3,244	4,751
Delaware	2,573	3,828	4,922
Dubuque	24,909	14,774	22,553
Fayette	3,718	4,082	4,124
Howard	1,878	1,443	2,495
Iowa	2,774	3,669	4,764
Jackson	5,656	2,605	5,386
Jones	3,540	3,670	5,911
Linn	49,666	37,948	52,303
Marshall	7,379	7,477	8,937
Mitchell	1,783	2,495	2,662
Poweshiek	3,704	3,655	5,010
Tama	3,360	3,394	4,472
Winnishiek	3,543	4,465	5,119
Worth	1,515	1,749	1,942

total	162,908	136,453	191,327

Iowa reaction to the IRS scandal

desmoinesdem — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:28:00 GMT

Internal Revenue Service Acting Director Steven Miller was forced to resign this week following revelations that the IRS targeted tea party organizations that applied for tax-exempt status. I enclose below reaction to this scandal from Iowa's Congressional delegation.

A separate post is in progress to catch up on recent votes by Iowa's four U.S. representatives and two senators.
Although IRS scrutiny should never be politically motivated, the abuse of tax-exempt 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status is a major problem. Erika Kelton expressed it well in this commentary for Forbes:

Taxpayers in effect subsidize tax-exempt groups with the understanding that these groups engage solely in social welfare, educational, charitable or other work deemed important for the public good as specified in the tax code. Groups that don't hold up their end of the bargain should lose the benefits of being tax-exempt. [...]
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has long spoken out about the abuse and misuse of tax-exempt status. Many years ago he identified key areas of concern, which haven't changed. Some of those concerns included:
* Excessive compensation perks, pay and sweetheart deals involving officers and directors.
* Nonprofit groups that act more like for-profit businesses than charities.
* Inappropriate political activity.
* Lack of financial transparency and accountability to donors.
* Nonprofit hospitals that do not provide adequate charity care and community benefits.
* Tax-exempt organizations fronting as tax-shelters.
Too many groups that don't deserve tax-exempt status have gotten it with very few questions asked. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing groups that hide their political agenda behind their tax-exempt status or subsidizing any other organizations that don't truly qualify.
In the recent controversy, all sides seem to agree that the IRS went too far in the demands for information from the Tea Party groups. However, the lesson from the Tea Party applications shouldn't be to stop asking questions; it should be to establish clear definitions and rules regarding who qualifies for tax-exempt status and to consistently ask the same questions of all applicants.

On May 14, Grassley's office sent out this press release:

Grassley Seeks Details Behind IRS Official's Apology for Targeting Tax-exempt Groups
WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today asked the IRS for details on the agency's move to disclose the targeting of tax-exempt groups for scrutiny and apologize for the targeting at a legal conference, after refusing to fully answer questions about such activity from members of Congress who have been asking about the targeting for more than a year. Grassley also asked for communications on the issue between the IRS and the White House or other organizations.
"An IRS official apologized for activities the IRS previously denied," Grassley said. "She explained the activities in a detailed way. Why now, and why at a conference instead of to Congress? Congress has been asking the same questions. The IRS has to answer for its behavior and its failure to disclose its behavior."
The IRS' screening of tax-exempt groups with certain political leanings came to light on Friday, when the head of the IRS' tax-exempt division disclosed the practice at an American Bar Association conference and apologized for it. The disclosure came days before an inspector general report on the issue is expected to become public.
Key members of Congress have written to the IRS and heard testimony from top IRS officials in denial of the targeting practice over the past year.
The text of Grassley's letter is available here.

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) released this statement and letter to President Barack Obama on May 13:

Washington, D.C. - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today called on President Barack Obama to request the immediate resignation of Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service, and launch an independent investigation into revelations that the IRS has been targeting certain groups for increased scrutiny based on their political beliefs.
On Friday, the IRS admitted it had targeted groups for tax audits based on whether organizations used terms like "tea party" and "patriot" in their names. Lerner apologized for those actions.
Braley said, "Our society is based on free ideas and free expression. When the government targets organizations because of their political beliefs, it has a chilling effect on free speech and damages the very foundation of our country.
"Sorry just doesn't cut it. There need to be consequences for this violation of the public trust, starting with the resignation of Lois Lerner. President Obama should also immediately begin a thorough and independent investigation of the IRS to ensure that anyone responsible for this behavior is held accountable.
"There is simply no place for politics at the IRS."
Braley made the request in a letter to President Obama. Full text of the letter follows; a copy of the signed letter is attached.
--
May 13, 2013
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
I am shocked and furious to learn that an agency with the authority and responsibility as influential as that of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has unfairly increased scrutiny over Americans for using terms such as "tea party," "patriot" and "9-12." In reviewing applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status, the IRS has failed to treat all citizens equally and judiciously in carrying out the law and their obligations to the American people.
I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter and acknowledgement that this activity is unacceptable. I ask that you not tolerate these biased and unfair actions in the IRS and immediately launch a swift, independent investigation of the egregious oversight, as well as call for the resignation of Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations for the IRS. I am extremely troubled that under Lerner's supervision IRS agents were given little guidance for review of these applications and repeatedly changed their criteria for their examination.
Lerner knew of this activity in June of 2011 and still, rather than create a fair and uniform process to review the applications, six months later in January of 2012 the IRS adopted standards to focus on "political action type organizations" that are involved in "limiting or expanding government," and "educating the public on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform." These criteria clearly target applicants based on their political beliefs rather than whether or not their activities and structure meet the eligibility standards for 501(c)(4) status.
These revelations about the IRS have damaged the agency's ability to enforce laws that require 501(c)(4) organizations to comply with statutory limits on political advocacy. During this time of increased political advocacy and heightened partisan politics, Americans rely on the IRS to act with neutrality and integrity. Restoring this confidence is necessary to empower the IRS to exact its oversight and ensure that groups applying for and operating under this tax exempt status are in fact meeting the goals and requirements associated with the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.
I understand that all agencies are doing more with less and that review of these applications increased without clear guidelines for review. However, this is exactly the problem. No clear guidelines for a neutral assessment were provided to the IRS agents until May 17, 2012. This error is a direct problem in supervision and management and it must be dealt with on behalf of all Americans. In overseeing the social welfare and political activities of groups that apply for this status, the IRS must provide guidance and criteria that allow agents to act in a fair and neutral manner with all applicants.
American citizens need to know that their beliefs and associations will not be discriminated against by their government and they deserve quick action that affirms this activity is intolerable. I hope that you will move forward immediately to ensure a thorough and independent investigation takes place, clear guidelines are provided, and that the appropriate supervisors are dealt with.
Sincerely,
Bruce Braley
Member of Congress

After President Obama announced yesterday that Miller had resigned, Braley's office sent out this comment:

"The resignation of the IRS acting director is a good first step at holding accountable the people responsible for the shameful actions of the IRS. As I've said, there is no place for politics at the IRS, and the IRS' targeting of groups for scrutiny based on nothing more than their political beliefs is an affront to our society's value of free expression.
"I continue to urge the President to conduct a thorough and independent investigation to ensure anyone responsible for this behavior is held accountable."
On Monday, Braley wrote President Obama urging him to ask for the resignation of Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, and launch an independent investigation into the actions of the IRS. The letter is attached.

Today Braley hit the nail on the head in these comments to Radio Iowa:

"The latest reports of what has been happening at the Internal Revenue Service undermines the public's trust in government, it harms the IRS's effort to enforce the laws that they're charged with enforcing. And it hurts their efforts to enforce the laws that apply to 501C-4 non-profit organizations."
The IRS admitted it targeted conservative groups when applications were put in to review them. Braley says the rules require the non-profit groups to have a 50-percent cap their political activity.
"I believe that there have been abuses of that 50-percent cap and that's one of the enforcement responsibilities of the Internal Revenue Service. But when you have a cloud hanging over the agency because of the approval of the applications on the front end, it damages the credibility of the agency to conduct a nonpartisan investigation of groups to make sure that they are complying with the law," Braley says.
He says the IRS problems have to be cleared up before anything can be done about possible violations of the rules by non-profit groups.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) released this statement on May 14:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack today called on President Obama to fully investigate the allegations that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) illegally targeted non-profit organizations based on ideological criteria. He also called for the swift dismissal of anyone involved in the wrongdoing and anyone who had knowledge that it was happening and did not act to stop it. Yesterday, Loebsack wrote to the Acting Commissioner of the IRS calling for an investigation and today sent a letter to the President demanding action.
"I call upon the IRS to promptly conduct a thorough, independent investigation of these allegations. The agency needs to hold those responsible for this partisan discrimination fully accountable, including firing anyone who had knowledge that it was happening and did not act to stop it," Loebsack wrote to Steven Miller, the Acting Commissioner of the IRS. "I respectfully call on you to see through an impartial, independent investigation of these allegations, and urge you to take appropriate actions to hold those responsible fully accountable."
"I was incredibly shocked to read the reports that the Internal Revenue Service engaged in targeting of groups based on ideological criteria. It is unacceptable for the agency that we as a nation rely on to execute our tax code to be anything but completely neutral and nonpartisan," Loebsack wrote to President Obama. "If it is found that these allegations are true, I urge the swift dismissal of those involved in the wrongdoing as well as anyone who knew what was happening and did not immediately act to fully investigate and disclose actions by IRS employees."
The letter to Acting Commissioner Miller can be found here. The letter to President Obama can be found here.

Loebsack's office sent out this statement yesterday before Miller's resignation was made public:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement calling on Steven Miller, the Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to step down in light of a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The report contained new information citing "ineffective management" as a reason non-profit organizations were illegally targeted based on ideological criteria for more than 18 months.
"After the report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the IRS watchdog, I believe Acting Director Steven Miller must step down. The American people expect the IRS to be wholly neutral and nonpartisan and to have a Commissioner who is capable of providing the leadership necessary to enforce that standard amongst every IRS employee. I no longer believe Acting Commissioner Miller is viewed as such by the American people and he needs to be replaced. If Mr. Miller will not step down on his own, I believe the President needs to dismiss him."

Today Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) released this statement after participating in a joint press conference by Republicans in Congress.

"Today I joined my friends in the House and Senate, as well as conservative leaders from across the country, to bring light to the recent admission by the IRS that it unjustly targeted conservative groups leading up to the 2012 election," said King. "There is no place for this kind of political targeting in our constitutional republic. This reeks of the kind of political tyranny that so many people from around the world came to America to escape.
This scandal cannot be considered in isolation. The IRS has become a bullying arm of the monstrous federal government - used to harass the political enemies of the president. This problem will only get worse, as the IRS will be the prime enforcement arm of ObamaCare: collecting a trillion dollars in new taxes and auditing individuals and businesses to make sure they have government-approved health insurance. This IRS scandal makes it more important than ever that we repeal ObamaCare, and it should also renew calls for fundamental tax reform, the FairTax, which would abolish the IRS entirely."

At this writing, I have not seen any public comments on the IRS scandal from Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03) or U.S. Senator Tom Harkin.

President Obama has said he was unaware of the IRS actions toward tea party groups.

Iowa wildflower Wednesday: Spring beauty

desmoinesdem — Thu, 16 May 2013 03:05:00 GMT

If you've walked in the Iowa woods lately, chances are you've seen some spring beauties in bloom. Over the weekend I saw hundreds of them along the Bill Riley bike trail in Des Moines and in the oak savanna area of the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge near Prairie City.

Several pictures of this lovely flower are after the jump, along with a couple of mystery wildflowers I need help identifying. If you know what they are, please post a comment in this thread or e-mail desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.
Spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), also known as Virginia spring beauty, is found throughout most of the eastern U.S. and Canada. It can bloom from March through May in Iowa. With this year's cold spring, I didn't see any spring beauties blooming in central Iowa until well into April.

Spring beauty flowers remain closed in the morning and evening, and sometimes in the middle of the day if it's cloudy. By mid to late morning, flowers open up. In this photo, you can see closed spring beauties near the bottom of the frame and open blossoms near the center. The leaves of spring beauties are long and thin, almost like grass. The large, rounded arrow-shaped leaves in this photo are violets.

In Wildflowers of Iowa Woodlands, Sylvan Runkel and Alvin Bull write,

Small delicate flowers, usually less than 1/2 inch across, vary from white to pink with characteristic darker pink veining. The flowers are arranged in two rows along one side of the main stem. The flowers themselves turn toward the sunshine. [...] Each flower has five rounded petals and only two green sepals.

The pink veining is more visible in these photos, thanks to a friend who helped me adjust the settings on my camera. Some spring beauties have a paler tone than others.

Although you can't see the detail on the spring beauties in this shot, I wanted to include this batch of spring beauties near a stand of May apples (umbrella plants) that are starting to flower. Bleeding Heartland featured May apples last year.

I hope some readers will be able to identify the mystery tiny white flowers in this photo. Keep in mind that the spring beauty blossoms are only about a half-inch across.

Final mystery for this week: I saw a lot of these yellow flowers recently on the Bill Riley trail. They look like early buttercups (Ranunculus fascicularis) to me, but does anyone know for sure?

IA-01: Don't freak out, organize

desmoinesdem — Wed, 15 May 2013 22:43:00 GMT

Apparently there was some contentious Facebook discussion about whether the Iowa Democratic Party would or should support Swati Dandekar if she wins next year's primary to represent Iowa's first Congressional district.

What a waste of energy.

I am not convinced Dandekar will run for Congress, and if she runs, I doubt she will win the IA-01 primary. Several core Democratic constituencies have a problem with her, and I don't see any outpouring of support. At this writing, six days after Dandekar confirmed that she is considering the race, the Facebook page for her exploratory committee has only five "likes." I don't see her path to beating Pat Murphy or some other Democrat who may join the race later. Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon is leaning towards running, Rick Smith reported for the Cedar Rapids Gazette.

Instead of fretting over an unlikely scenario in IA-01, progressives with a grudge against conservadems should recruit a strong primary challenger to Joe Seng in Iowa Senate district 45. His voting record is worse than Dandekar's, and he's gotten some horrible legislation passed. Senate district 45, based in Davenport, is safe for Democrats in the general election.

Kent Sorenson clashing with House Republicans over abortion funding

desmoinesdem — Wed, 15 May 2013 16:35:00 GMT

State Senator Kent Sorenson claims to have made some Iowa House Republicans unhappy by helping the advocacy group Iowa Pro-Life Action pressure state representatives over abortion funding. Currently, Iowa's Medicaid program covers abortions under very limited circumstances. In fact, our state is among the most restrictive in this area. Nevertheless, a compromise worked out on the final day of the 2011 legislative session angered many conservatives. Some Iowa Republicans have pushed for a total ban on Medicaid-funded abortion.

In a Facebook post last night, Sorenson lambasted members of his own party who do not keep their promises on the "pro-life" issue. He claimed that some House Republicans "are considering filing ethics charges against me" because he signed a letter Iowa Pro-Life Action sent to lawmakers. Looking through the Iowa House Code of Ethics, it's not clear to me which rule Sorenson might have violated. House Republican staffer Josie Albrecht told me by telephone that she was not aware of any pending ethics complaints by legislators against Sorenson.

I enclose the full text of the Facebook post after the jump. At this writing, it has been "shared" by 63 Facebook users, including conservative talk radio hosts Steve Deace and Jan Mickelson.

Sorenson is already facing an ethics investigation related to alleged paid work for Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign. I have been wondering whether Republicans might be better off with a different nominee in Iowa Senate district 13 next year. However, an uncompromising stand against abortion funding would serve Sorenson well if he faced a GOP primary challenger.
Facebook post by Kent Sorenson, May 14:

An open letter to the Iowa Pro-life community
In my five years of elected office here in Iowa I learned that politics, sadly, so often is less about principle and more about simply maintaining the status quo.
More directly, it's often just about being loyal to a person, or a PAC, or an outside organization than anything else.
If you dare to "buck the establishment," especially within your own party you are immediately painted as a trouble maker and silenced if possible.
The power brokers have their tricks.
They can remove you from important committee assignments or they can make sure that in the next election cycle you don't get the same resources (a.k.a. money) that you would have otherwise received - one way or the other they will punish you.
But I didn't get elected to play patty cake with those who want to raise our taxes, restrict our gun rights, or kill unborn babies...especially those who want to kill unborn babies.
This issue has been important to my wife and me since the day that our first child was born. But it has become even more important in some ways this year, as I became a grandfather for the first time.
As I hold my grandson in my arms I almost cry thinking about the other babies here in Iowa, over 3,000 a year, who are put to death for the crime of being "inconvenient."
And I get downright angry knowing that Iowa has taxpayer funded abortion, and that part of my tax dollars are going to pay for abortions.
That's why I've fought, since the day I was elected, to put an end to abortion here in Iowa.
If my memory serves me right, I've been sponsoring pro-life legislation every single year since I was first elected back in 2009.
While many politicians will sponsor legislation and call it pro-life, it's often not.
For example, in Minnesota they have been "fighting" to ensure that abortion clinics are sterile before a baby is put to death.
In my case, I've proudly sponsored the "Life-at-Conception" bill here for years which would legislatively end abortion in this state once signed into law.
Of course, even filing this legislation greatly alarms some politicians since they may be asked where they stand on this topic.
When I was elected into the House in 2009, the Republicans were in the minority and I spent two years watching my bills die since House Democrats were in charge.
I always told myself that once the Republican Party took over the House or the Senate, things would be different since we'd have the power to shut down taxpayer funded abortion and pass real pro-life bills.
In the Fall of 2010, the voters elected me to serve in the State Senate where I still serve today. Just like when I was in the House, the Democrats have control of this chamber too.
But I was elated to see the GOP take over the House in 2010 knowing that now we'd have the ability to defend unborn life.
But sadly, I was naïve.
You see, while it may be a shock to read this, the Republican controlled House approved taxpayer monies to be spent on abortion in 2011 and 2012.
Babies died as a result.
I've done all I can do. I've begged, pleaded, and prayed that my former colleagues would find the courage to do what is right but so far that's not been enough.
So when my friends at Iowa Pro-Life Action asked me to sign a letter that they were mailing out recently, urging the recipients to mail in pre-addressed postcards to their representatives encouraging them to vote NO on taxpayer funded abortion, I happily agreed.
After doing this, I was notified just last night that multiple Republican members of the House of Representatives are considering filing ethics charges against me!
For taking a stand for life.
For trying to end taxpayer sponsored murder.
For daring to call a spade a spade, even when it involves members of my own political party.
But I don't know what else to do.
I have watched, for years, as politician after politician uses the pro-life issue to solidify his election or re-election.
Then, once safely in office, they do virtually NOTHING to keep their campaign promises.
Enough is enough - either you are pro-life or you're not.
And so I would call on all of you to join me and Iowa Pro-Life Action in this fight!
Please take a moment to email your State Representative IMMEDIATELY and insist as strongly as you know how that they vote against taxpayer funded abortion.
(The House just adjourned for the week, they may miss your calls so please email instead.)
Allow me to let you in on a little secret.
Often times this bill, the Health and Human Services budget bill (where they sneak in your money for abortion), will be voted on multiple times.
Just last week this bill was voted on and my colleagues voted correctly. This is the vote that they will campaign on.
But the bill now goes to what's called a "conference committee" - where the leadership from the Senate and House meet together to hash out their differences and come to an agreement on the bill's final wording.
This is where it matters, this is where the babies live or die.
After the compromise is agreed to, then the revised bill will go back to both chambers for a vote on final passage.
Only this time, it will contain taxpayer dollars for abortion. Too often, our own people vote for this version hoping that voters don't find out.
So when you contact your legislator, tell them that all you care about is their vote on the bill's final passage.
Tell them that the time for games is over and that they need to draw a line in the sand and NOT GIVE ONE INCH when it comes to this issue.
Please pray for my family and me.
You've likely heard my name in the news lately regarding ethics charges. They are simply not true.
Perhaps giving you an inside look at how easy it is to have "ethics charges" slapped on you if you offend the party power brokers in Des Moines will shed some light on the other "charges" that I'm enduring.
So please pray for my family and me, that we'd have the strength to endure this attack and maintain our fight for the unborn.
Please also do what you can to assist Iowa Pro-Life Action.
I can't tell you what it means to have an organization share the same grit, determination and principles working side by side with me to defend life - regardless of who stands in that path.
Sending out email alerts, gathering petitions, surveying candidates - this is exactly what Iowa needs.
Please email your representative right away and tell him/her that you'll be watching their vote on the FINAL PASSAGE of this bill very closely.
And a message to those politicians who are considering filing ethics charges against me for asking them to vote pro-life, know this: I'll never back down in my defense of unborn life, no matter how many ethics charges you file against me.
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." - Matthew 25:40
Senator Kent Sorenson
R-13

Iowa Democratic Party files ethics complaint against new state auditor

desmoinesdem — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:40:00 GMT

Talk about a rocky start: just hours after she took the oath yesterday as Iowa state auditor, Mary Mosiman was asked to probe the allegedly improper use of federal funds by her former boss, Secretary of State Matt Schultz.

Today, the Iowa Democratic Party filed a complaint against Mosiman with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.
The complaint stems from how Mosiman used funds leftover from her 2010 re-election campaign for Story County auditor. Her most recent campaign finance disclosure form is available here (pdf). I enclose the Iowa Democratic Party's press release from this morning:

IOWA DEMOCRATS CALL FOR ETHICS INVESTIGATION OF NEWLY APPOINTED AUDITOR MOSIMAN
Spent more than $1000 of campaign funds for personal expense while not holding or running for elected office
DES MOINES - Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Troy Price today sent the following letter to Iowa Campaign Ethics and Disclosure Board Chair Megan Tooker asking her office to investigate whether state Auditor Mary Mosiman - who was appointed yesterday by Governor Terry Branstad - used campaign funds from her defunct campaign account for personal use.
Mosiman served as Story County Auditor from 2001 - 2010, when she resigned her position to take a job in Secretary of State Matt Schultz's office. While she was not a candidate for or an occupant of public office, she used more than $1000 in campaign funds to cover the costs of CPA trainings and partisan Republican travel around the state.
"The State Auditor's responsibility is to make sure taxpayer dollars are being used properly," said IDP Executive Director Troy Price. "These expenses raise a serious question about our newly appointed Auditor. If Mary Mosiman can't spent her own money properly, how can we trust her with ours?"
Below and attached are copies of the letter sent to the Iowa Campaign Ethics and Disclosure Board.
Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board
Megan Tooker
510 East 12th, Suite 1A
Des Moines, IA 50319
Ms. Tooker,
I am writing to file an official complaint against State Auditor Mary Mosiman, who continues to maintain her campaign account Mosiman for Auditor from her previous campaigns for the office of Story County Auditor.
On December 22, 2010 the Des Moines Register reported that Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz announced Mosiman would serve in his office as deputy of elections. According to the Ames Tribune, Mosiman resigned from her position as Story County Auditor on January 3rd, 2011.
Despite no longer actively holding or seeking any political office, in 2012 Mosiman used her campaign account to purchase nearly $1,000 worth of various training sessions and reimbursing herself and additional $149.18 for travel to county Republican conventions. The January 19th, 2013 disclosure report for Mosiman for Auditor lists the following expenditures:

These payments, totaling $1,095.18 were made more than a year after Mosiman resigned from her elected position and began working for the Iowa Secretary of State's office. As you know, Iowa Code 68A.302 states the following:
A candidate and the candidate's committee shall use campaign funds only for campaign purposes, educational and other expenses associated with the duties of office, or constituency services, and shall not use campaign funds for personal expenses or personal benefit.

Since Mosiman neither held, nor was she seeking, an elected position in 2012, these payments for training sessions and travel were solely for "personal benefit" and in direct violation of Iowa Code. It is my hope that you investigate this misuse of campaign funds and take appropriate action.
Sincerely,
Troy Price
Executive Director
Iowa Democratic Party

We're not talking about a large amount of money here, but they've got her dead to rights. Even a non-attorney can see that those expenditures are unrelated to Mosiman's former duties as county auditor or her campaigns for that office.

I would not be surprised if the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board finds some excuse to avoid taking action against Mosiman. They've swept legitimate complaints aside before. But it will be interesting to see Mosiman's rationale for using campaign funds in this way. The state auditor of all people should be squeaky clean when it comes to using money for its intended purpose.

Even if the ethics board eventually dismisses the Iowa Democratic Party's complaint, count on this issue coming up during the 2014 campaign for state auditor.

UPDATE: The Iowa Republican blog's Craig Robinson reacts.

Maybe instead of trying to find fault with Mosiman, the Iowa Democratic Party should police its own candidates first.
Former Governor Chet Culver has used campaign funds to pay for all sorts of things since leaving office. There is his storage unit at Fleur Mini Storage that he paid $180.20 a month for from January of 2012 thru July of 2012. One could say that was a personal benefit of $1,261.40. Culver also used campaign funds to pay for a $1500 event at Lucca, an upscale Restaurant in the East Village of Des Moines, in August of 2011. Culver also spent $1,705.05 on out-of-state travel and food expenses in March of 2011.
If we are using the Iowa Democrat's definition of "personal benefit" then Culver's use of campaign funds for airline tickets, rental cars, fast food, mini storage, and $1500 dinners is a far more blatant violation of the rules than Mosiman taking CPA classes.

If Culver runs for office again, he will surely have to explain those expenditures. But he's not running for anything as far as I know, and he wasn't just put in charge of auditing how the public's money is spent in Iowa.

IA-Sen: Matt Schultz talking with Republicans in Washington

desmoinesdem — Tue, 14 May 2013 17:40:00 GMT

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz flew to Washington, DC this morning to talk with Republicans about a possible U.S. Senate bid, Jennifer Jacobs reported for the Des Moines Register.

A few weeks ago, Republican blogger Craig Robinson put Schultz's chances of running for Senate at 90 percent. I still think there's a decent chance he will seek another term as secretary of state. A GOP Senate primary is no sure thing, especially with Schultz's weakness in the fundraising department.

On the other hand, the secretary of state's signature issue (photo ID requirements for election day voters) is extremely popular with the Republican base. Moreover, since the National Republican Senatorial Committee and outside groups are bound to target the U.S. Senate race, Schultz will have a lot of financial help if he wins the primary. Running for re-election to a lower-profile statewide office would put the pressure on him to keep up with Brad Anderson's fundraising and organizing.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker confirmed last week that he will run for Senate, and his campaign website is now live.

IA-Gov: Latest signals from Terry Branstad and Jack Hatch

desmoinesdem — Tue, 14 May 2013 14:48:00 GMT

Does anyone still doubt that Governor Terry Branstad plans to run for a sixth term next year? Those not convinced should read Mike Wiser's report on the full-time staffer just hired by Branstad's re-election campaign.

Meanwhile, Democratic State Senator Jack Hatch dropped a couple of hints lately about a possible run for governor.
Branstad's re-election campaign raised more than a million dollars last year and had $1,461,929.66 cash on hand as of January. Wiser reported last week that Phil Valenziano is now working full-time for Branstad's re-election effort. Valenziano was a field organizer for Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, later worked in the Iowa GOP's Cedar Rapids office, clerked for State Representative Chip Baltimore during the 2011 Iowa legislative session, and was state director for Romney's campaign in New Hampshire last year. He told Wiser that he will focus on "grassroots organizing" as well as handling summer parades and other events for the Branstad-Reynolds campaign.

The governor's communications director Tim Albrecht told Wiser that hiring staff is not a formal campaign announcement, but let's be serious. At the end of next year, Branstad will be ~~the third longest serving governor~~ in U.S. history. Winning and completing a sixth term would make him our country's longest-serving governor. CORRECTION: He's already the second-longest serving governor if you count George Clinton, who governed New York before and after the Constitution was ratified. The Smart Politics blog already gives Branstad the top spot, excluding Clinton's leadership before statehood. Barring some unknown major health problem, I can't imagine any scenario in which Branstad retires next year.

Up to now, Bob Krause has been the only Democrat to confirm that he is thinking about running against Branstad next year.

State Senator Jack Hatch has been rumored to be considering the race as well. He's up for re-election next year in Senate district 33, covering neighborhoods in central Des Moines and part of the south side. But the Des Moines Register's Jennifer Jacobs and Jason Noble reported on May 9,

Late last month, however, Hatch closed down the "Neighbors for Hatch" campaign committee that has served his state Senate runs and opened in its place a brand new committee, records from the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board show.
It's got the same name, the same treasurer, the same chairperson and even the same $7,935.48 in cash on hand. The difference? This new committee is specifically designated for a gubernatorial race.
Reached by phone on Friday, Hatch confirmed the committee's creation, but said it still represented only "an acknowledgment that I'm thinking about it."
He promised a full statement on the matter once the legislative session ends.

As chair of the Iowa Senate health and human services budget subcommittee, Hatch is a key negotiator for Democrats on the health and human services budget and the Medicaid expansion. It's understandable that he is focused on legislative work right now.

Still if he weren't planning to run for governor, would this Polk County senator be a featured speaker at the Johnson County Democrats' Hall of Fame event on May 11? John Deeth was there:

Hatch acknowledged that recently leaked news that he'd formed an exploratory committee for governor, and he pledges to stand on principle. "For the first time in 8 years, we'll have a governor who won't make decisions based on polls," he said, in an implied shot at Chet Culver. "Democrats win when we vote with our heart."
Health care, now stalled in the legislature, has been Hatch's signature issue. "Iowa has highest percentage of children with health insurance in the country," but calling the Republican proposal "the most cynical legislation I've ever seen. It would cost more money and provide less care."

Here's the link to the new Neighbors for Hatch committee. Like any other potential Democratic candidate for governor, Hatch would start out with lower name recognition and a much lower bank balance than Branstad. (I am discounting the Des Moines Register's ongoing speculation that Tom Vilsack might run for governor, because I see little sign he's seriously thinking about running.)

Any comments about the governor's race are welcome in this thread. Several other Democratic senators are reportedly thinking about the campaign, including Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, Senate President Pam Jochum, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Rob Hogg.

UPDATE: A few weeks ago, the Democratic Governors Association asserted that Branstad is vulnerable. From Mike Wiser's report:

Branstad, according to the poll, is in the middle with a 45 percent favorability rating, not bad, but not at the magic 50 percent or higher mark.
The Democratic Governors Association poll shows Branstad would lose to a generic Democrat in the race. Association spokesman Danny Kanner, however, would not go into details on the numbers.
"It shows he's vulnerable," said Tyler Olson, a state representative from Cedar Rapids and chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. "Terry Branstad has 1980's-style economic development policies and philosophies, that just doesn't cut it today." [...]
Kanner thinks Branstad is vulnerable on his opposition to Medicaid expansion and on the millions in tax breaks the administration offered an Egyptian-based conglomerate to build a fertilizer plant in Lee County.
Democratic Governors Association officials were in Iowa in the last month, which is when its poll was conducted. Kanner said the association also has had conversations with potential Democratic challengers, although he wouldn't go far as saying the group is trying to recruit any particular individual.
"We consider this a winnable seat in the 2013-2014 cycle," Kanner said. "It's one of the reasons we've been on the ground in Iowa this far in advance."

I would like to see a lot more details about that poll. I'm always suspicious when campaigns or political entities release partial numbers but not the full results, including questionnaire and cross-tabs.

It's too bad that media budget cuts have deprived us of frequent public polling during Branstad's term. When Chet Culver was governor, the Des Moines Register did more Iowa polls each year, and Survey USA measured approval ratings for Iowa's top politicians every month. It was easier to get a sense of the trends in Culver's approval rating.

From where I'm sitting, Branstad goes into next year's election strongly favored. The last couple of surveys by Public Policy Polling suggested his approval rating improved from 2011 to 2012. He will take credit for Iowa's low unemployment rate, even though Iowa had one of the country's lowest unemployment rates throughout the Great Recession. He will take credit for the large state budget surplus, even though the last budget approved by a Democratic legislature and signed by Culver also ended in surplus. He will use creative accounting to claim that he has met his job creation goals, despite the facts about job growth in Iowa. If the 2010 election coverage is any guide, the mainstream media will not scrutinize Branstad's serial lies and distortions.

Iowa's recreational land use immunity doctrine .....

MaryWolfe — Mon, 13 May 2013 21:45:00 GMT

cross-posted with permission from State Representative Mary Wolfe's blog

There have been many questions/concerns raised by the Iowa Supreme Court's recent ruling in Sallee v. Stewart, in which the Court was asked to interpret Iowa's Recreational Land Use Immunity doctrine. Like most of my colleagues, I've read the relevant court cases and studied the applicable statutes, and I've reviewed House File 605, the Farm Bureau's proposed bill intended to fix the "crisis" allegedly created by the Sallee ruling - and like many others, I've concluded that the actual impact of the Sallee ruling on Iowa's recreational land use immunity doctrine is minimal, and that the Farm Bureau's proposed legislation is an over-reaction to Sallee's extremely narrow holding.
What is Recreational Land Use Immunity?

Ordinarily, if you invite people onto your land, you have a duty to use reasonable care to either ensure that the premises are in a reasonably safe condition, or to warn your guests about any dangerous condition that isn't obvious to them but of which you are, or should be, aware. And if you don't do that, and someone gets hurt on your property, and if they sue you and can prove that their injury is due to your failure to use reasonable care - i.e., your negligence - then most likely your homeowner's premises liability policy is going to be paying out for their damages. Mistakes happen, and that's why we have insurance, right?

But back in the seventies, in order to encourage private landowners to make their land/water areas available to the public for outdoor recreational purposes, the Iowa legislature passed Iowa Code Chapter 461C, which decreed that "an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes." 461C.2 defines "recreational purposes" as: hunting, trapping, horseback riding, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, motorcycling, nature study, water skiing, snowmobiling, other summer and winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites while going to and from or actually engaged therein.

So the general idea behind Iowa's Recreational Land Use Immunity Doctrine is that if folks choose to take advantage of a landowner's generosity and enter onto his (generally unfamiliar to them) land to engage in any of the "recreational activities" set out in 461C.2, they do so at their own risk, and the landowner cannot be held responsible for any injuries related to a dangerous condition of the land (e.g., if a hunter trips over a hidden tree stump) unless the landowner acts "willfully or maliciously" (e.g., invites a group to set up camp in a specific field and fails to warn them of the fact that the field is known by the farmer to be completely infested with a rare and very poisonous type of tiny ant).

OK - so what happened in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

The Stewart family owns a dairy farm in Northeast Iowa, and often provided groups of students with (free of charge) guided tours of their farm. In May of 2010, Ms. Sallee was a chaperone for one such guided student tour, which ended with a visit to the barn's hayloft to allow the children to play on and around the bales of hay stored in the hayloft.

Mr. Stewart accompanied the group to the hayloft - he assisted them up the ladder, and warned the children not to climb too high. Mr. Stewart did not warn or mention to the group the fact that some of the hay bales were placed on top of large holes in the floor, totally covering the holes from view (these "hay drops" were normally used to push hay down to the cows in the barn below). There was testimony that earlier in the day, while inspecting the hay loft, Mr. Stewart had stood on each of the bales of hay covering a hay drop to ensure its sturdiness; unfortunately, when Ms. Sallee (who was described in the ruling as a "large woman") stood on one of these bales of hay, it collapsed under her weight and she fell through the floor, sustaining serious injuries. Eventually, Ms. Sallee sued the Stewarts, and the Stewarts' insurance company moved for summary judgment, citing Iowa's recreational land use immunity doctrine.

How did the District Court rule in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

The District Court ruled in favor of the Stewarts' insurance company, finding that Ms. Sallee was present at the Stewarts' farm for a recreational purpose, and thus the Stewarts owed her no legal duty to ensure her safety and/or to provide her with any warning of the possible danger posed by the holes in the hayloft floor, even though Ms. Sallee couldn't see the holes since the Stewarts had covered them up with bales of hay.

How did the Court of Appeals rule in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

Ms. Sallee appealed the District Court's ruling to the Iowa Court of Appeals; its ruling agreed with the District Court that in their capacity as landowners, the Stewarts enjoyed immunity from liability for Ms. Sallee's injuries - but then went on to rule that nonetheless, Ms. Sallee had a cause of action against the Stewarts under a "negligent supervision" liability theory. The Court reasoned that by putting themselves in charge of where the tour group went and what the tour group did while on the farm, the Stewarts voluntarily assumed the role/status of "tour guides," and as such they had a duty to warn Ms. Sallee about possible dangers associated with the tour-related activities of which the Stewarts were or should have been aware but which Ms. Sallee could not reasonably be expected to have anticipated.

How did the Iowa Supreme Court rule in the Sallee v. Stewart case?

The Stewarts appealed this ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, which, somewhat surprisingly, issued a majority opinion that specifically declined to adopt the Court of Appeal's "tour guide" liability theory, and instead held that Ms. Sallee had a right to move forward with her premises liability claim against the Stewarts for the simple reason that "playing in the hay" was not one of the "recreational activities" set out in Iowa Code section 461C.2 - and thus the recreational land use immunity doctrine did not apply under the specific facts of the case. And that's really the complete sum and total of the Sallee holding: that "playing in the hay" isn't a recreational activity for purposes of Iowa's recreational land use immunity doctrine. Period.

Does Sallee reduce landowners' protection under the recreational land use immunity doctrine?

In a word - NO. It's true that in the long and somewhat rambling discussion of the origins and nature of the recreational land use immunity doctrine leading up to its holding, the Sallee opinion cites several appellate rulings in which courts from other states chose to interpret their own recreational land use immunity statutes in ways that restricted the scope of protection offered by those statutes - but the Sallee opinion also cites rulings from states in which the appellate courts went the other way. And most importantly, in the end, our Court specifically declined to adopt any of the policy based holdings set out in any of these cases, instead issuing a very narrow ruling based solely on the unusual set of facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. Sallee's injury. Thus, despite assertions to the contrary, the holding in Sallee in no way restricts or reduces a landowner's protection under the recreational land use immunity doctrine if the landowner is allowing public entry onto his land for the primary purpose of engaging in one of the recreational activities specifically spelled out in 461C.2.

Do farmers have recreational land use immunity for guided farm tours?

After Sallee, there remains a question as to whether Iowa's recreational land use immunity doctrine affords farmers immunity from liability for injuries that take place during a guided farm tour - since while the Iowa Supreme Court declined to adopt the Court of Appeal's holding that a landholder who chooses to guide a group of persons on a tour of his/her farm automatically forfeits this immunity, the Court also didn't explicitly reject this theory. Seeking to do away with this uncertainty, the Farm Bureau has sponsored House File 605, which defines a "guided farm tour" as a "recreational activity" under 461C, and further clarifies that a landowner cannot be held liable for any injury incurred by a person participating in such a guided tour unless the injured person can prove that the injury was due to willful or malicious actions on the part of the farmer. The bill also expands the scope of a "recreational activity" to include "any activity undertaken for recreation, sport, exercise, relaxation, education or pleasure" - which pretty much encompasses all non-employment related activities, right?

What's the problem with House File 605?

I've received many emails from many farmers urging me to pass HF 605 without amendment, and warning me that if we don't pass it exactly as drafted, children across the state will forever be deprived of the fun and educational experience of a field trip to a local farm. But I can't vote in favor of HF 605 in its current form, and I sincerely believe that the majority of Iowans - including the majority of Iowa's farmers - aren't in favor of a bill that seeks to hold a farmer (or actually, the farmer's insurance company) completely immune from liability even if a farmer leads a group of children or dependent adults directly into contact with a dangerous condition of which they could not possibly be aware, and then fails to provide them with any warning of, or protection from, the dangerous condition.

Following are just a few scenarios in which a farmer would be held immune from liability as a matter of law under HF 605:

1. A farmer owns a dog who doesn't like children, who has bitten a child in the past, and who generally hangs out in the barn in hot weather. The farmer knows all this, and thus typically locks the dog up when students visit the farm, but in the confusion surrounding the arrival of a large group of first graders it slips his mind - and so he marches the children into the barn to watch a cow being milked without first checking to see if the dog is in the barn and/or warning the kids to stay away from the dog. When some innocent little first grader goes to pet the nice doggy sitting next to the cow and gets her face eaten off, do we really want to tell her parents that sorry, the farmer can't be held liable for their child's permanent and severe disfigurement?

2. Imagine the same facts as in the Sallee v. Stewart case, except this time it's a kindergartener who suffers severe brain injury when the bale of hay on which he is playing (under the direction and supervision of Mr. Stewart) collapses, causing him to plummet through the hidden hay drop. Under HF 605, the fact that the child wouldn't have fallen through the hay drop but for the fact that Mr. Stewart disguised it by putting a bale of hay on top of it and then instructed the child to jump on the bale of hay would be irrelevant - Mr. Stewart would have complete immunity, since he didn't intend for the child to be injured.

3. Finally, imagine a farm couple has invited a group of high school kids to tour their apple orchard and make apple cider. The farmer mistakenly sets the heating element on the cider pasteurizer way too high, and it explodes, blinding several of the teens. Again, even though it's clear that the sole reason for the injuries is a major screw up on the part of the landowner, HF 605 would hold him immune from financial liability.

The common thread in the above examples is that the landowner has led or directed the child into contact with a dangerous condition created by the landowner of which the child could not possibly have been aware, and while I am sure that none of us would deliberately create a dangerous condition and then lead a group of children into the middle of it, mistakes do happen. And when a mistake has tragic consequences and causes permanent injury or death to a child or dependent adult, the insurance company representing the person responsible for making the mistake should be held financially liable for the mistake.

Is a compromise/resolution possible?

Absolutely! While legislating away any and all responsibility for our children's safety is an unacceptable public policy, farmers who allow student groups the opportunity to visit a working farm provide a wonderful service to Iowa's children, and in order to encourage farmers to continue to provide this service it's appropriate to shield them from liability for injuries due to circumstances outside of their control (e.g., a child is bitten by a pig after ignoring the farmer's warning not to pet said pig). To that end, legislators from both parties have been working together to pass a bill that will clarify a landowner's rights and responsibilities with regards to guided farm tours, and clear up any confusion generated by the Sallee ruling and the (over) reaction to it. Like most compromises, I don't anticipate that it will make everyone (or even anyone) particularly happy, but it should provide all relevant parties with adequate guidance and protection.

In the meantime, please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions, comments, or suggestions about any of this - it's a complicated issue and I certainly welcome any and all input!

Record nitrate levels are wake-up call on Iowa water

desmoinesdem — Mon, 13 May 2013 21:25:00 GMT

The Des Moines Water Works provides drinking water for roughly 500,000 people in central Iowa, about one-sixth of the state's population. The utility owns the world's largest nitrate-removal system, larger than those operated by cities ten times the size of the Des Moines metro area. Last Friday, that facility was switched on for the first time in nearly six years when "levels of health-threatening nitrates hit records in both the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers."

The news should be a wake-up call to state leaders: Iowa needs more than a voluntary strategy to reduce nutrients in our waterways. Not only are many of our rivers too polluted to support aquatic life, they are becoming more difficult and expensive to purify for drinking water. Nitrate levels are high in other parts of Iowa too, not only in the Des Moines area.
Perry Beeman broke the news Friday at the Des Moines Register's website. I recommend clicking through to read the whole story, but here's an excerpt.

"We are off our playing field. We haven't seen this before," [Water Works General Manager Bill] Stowe said.
"The issue is the quality of the water in the Raccoon and the Des Moines. This trend is absolutely off the scale," Stowe said. "It's like having serial tornadoes. You can deal with one, you can deal with two, but you can't deal with them every day."
"The state's Nutrient Reduction Strategy, with it's emphasis on the voluntary measure, clearly isn't working," Stowe said. "And our ratepayers are paying significantly to remove nitrates." [...]
Nitrates have been linked to blue-baby syndrome, in which infants suffocate, as well as to various cancers and miscarriages. The federal limit is 10 milligrams per liter nitrate in drinking water; both rivers have posted readings in the range of 20.
The Raccoon River hit 24 this week; the previous record was 22. The Des Moines was just under 18; the record was 14.2.
Stowe said tap water will remain safe, even with the unusual difficulty in finding water with lower nitrate levels to blend with the supplies running high. The $4 million nitrate-removal plant, installed in 1992 costs about $7,000 a day to run. So far, the utility is using four of the eight treatment cells where nitrates are stripped from the water. EPA had ordered Des Moines to act to remove nitrates after the contaminant exceeded the federal limit.

KCCI-TV reported on Friday,

Nitrates are mainly used as fertilizers in agriculture. [...]
The problem is worse because drought-stunted crops absorbed less nitrogen fertilizer last fall leaving it in soil. This spring's heavy rain washed it into rivers.

The state unveiled a draft strategy on nutrients last November, but the proposals have not yet been implemented. Water quality experts from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and various environmental organizations, as well as some farmers, have criticized the nutrient reduction strategy for relying solely on voluntary measures by farmers and not setting numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus in waterways. The EPA favors numeric criteria as part of any nutrient reduction strategy.

Susan Heathcote is water program director of the Iowa Environmental Council, a non-profit with which I'm involved. She issued this statement on May 10:

"Last November, Secretary of Agriculture Northey and other state government leaders released a strategy to reduce Iowa's nitrogen and phosphorous contributions to the Gulf of Mexico by 45% statewide."
"The announcement of record nitrogen pollution levels in the Raccoon River is a reminder that nitrogen and phosphorous pollution is also a serious threat to clean water here in Iowa. It has been for decades. Despite this, Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy fails to set local nitrogen and phosphorous reduction goals for cleaner water necessary to protect the health and well-being of Iowans.
"Local pollution reduction goals are critical to motivating Iowa farmers and landowners to make the significant changes necessary to ensure clean water. Iowans should be confident efforts to reduce this pollution will protect those who want clean water for drinking and recreation in Iowa as well as downstream.
"Iowans should call on state government leaders to include local pollution reduction goals, timelines and accountability measures in Iowa's strategy."

Also on Friday, the Sierra Club Iowa chapter released the following statement.

Des Moines, IA - Record-breaking nitrates found in both the Raccoon and the Des Moines Rivers, the drinking source for hundreds of thousands of Central Iowans, should be a wake-up call for legislators before they adjourn for the session.
Des Moines Water Works' reports of 24 mg/l in the Raccoon River and 17.87 mg/l in the Des Moines River (previous records were 22 mg/l and 14.2 mg/l respectively) represent totally unacceptable levels of nitrates in our drinking water. Nitrates can cause serious illness in humans.
"The responsibility for the nitrate levels falls on the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship and the Farm Bureau," said Debbie Neustadt, Sierra Club Iowa Chapter chair. "We've had this problem for 40 years and industry continues to resist any form of regulation that would improve our water quality."
In November 2012, the Iowa Department of Land Stewardship and the Department of Natural Resources released the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The strategy is intended to reduce the amount of Nitrogen and Phosphorus that floats through the Mississippi River watershed (of which both the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers are a part) into the Gulf of Mexico and contributes to the hypoxia (more commonly known as the "dead zone") there. The Iowa "strategy" calls for targeting "...voluntary conservation measures, in conjunction with research, development and demonstration of new approaches."
"The Iowa Nutrient Strategy is based on the false premise that Iowa is making significant progress in reducing water pollution and that no real changes need to be made in what thus far has been a voluntary and ineffective approach to nonpoint sources of pollution," said Wally Taylor, Sierra Club Iowa Chapter Legal chair.
Legislation being considered during this session includes allocating $7 million for implementing the nutrient reduction strategy but requires no accountability to whoever receives the funds.
"How much more evidence do policymakers need to understand that voluntary conservation measures are ineffective?" said Neila Seaman, Sierra Club Iowa Chapter director. "Agricultural runoff is resulting in record nitrate levels of our drinking water."

To my knowledge, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey has not made any public comment on the record levels of nitrates in the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers. He has ruled out any new regulations on farming practices to combat excessive nutrients in our water.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Water Works released this statement on May 13:

Nitrate levels in Des Moines Water Works' source water reached historic levels last week, at 24 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in the Raccoon River and 17.87 mg/l in the Des Moines River. Currently at Des Moines Water Works' river intake locations, the Raccoon River is reporting 21.04 and the Des Moines River is reporting 17.56 mg/l; however, higher numbers are being seen upstream. This new record follows the continued upward trend of nitrate concentrations since fertilizer use and increased row-crop agriculture began in the mid-1960s. It has been calculated that last week's nitrate load surpassed last year's entire nitrate load.
Through extensive and expensive water treatment, Des Moines Water Works' finished drinking water currently has a nitrate level of 7.5 mg/l. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate levels in finished drinking water is 10 mg/l.
In 1991, Des Moines Water Works built a $3.7 million Nitrate Removal Facility, which costs approximately $7,000 per day to operate. The facility has not been activated since 2007. Des Moines Water Works activated the Nitrate Removal Facility last Friday to keep finished drinking water nitrate levels below 10 mg/l. Prior to starting up the facility, Des Moines Water Works staff managed the situation through blending of various water sources, including water from the Gallery (shallow ground water collector system), Maffitt Reservoir, Crystal Lake and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells.
"Des Moines Water Works staff has employed extensive efforts to mitigate nitrate levels, but because changes are not occurring in the watershed, we were left with no alternative but to activate the expensive Nitrate Removal Facility," said Bill Stowe, CEO and General Manager, Des Moines Water Works.
Nitrate from fertilizer enters our water resources through run-off and agricultural tile drainage systems.
"The optimal solution to prevent nitrate concentrations from entering our source water is through watershed protection programs and good land management practices," said Stowe. "However, the recently published Nutrient Reduction Strategy is inadequate in that it lacks vision, goals, measurable outcomes, or timelines for agricultural (non-point) discharges. Without significant action, Des Moines Water Works will be forced to continue treating degraded source waters, and our customers will continue to pay for that extensive treatment in their rates."
The greatest health risk posed by high nitrate concentrations is for infants under six months of age. Nitrate can transform into nitrite in the infant's body, reducing the ability of the baby's blood to carry oxygen. This may result in Blue Baby Syndrome. Des Moines Water Works' finished drinking water nitrate concentration is currently below the level that will cause these health complications. If you are carrying for an infant, pregnant or have specific health concerns, you may wish to consult your doctor.

Senator asks new auditor to investigate Secretary of State's use of federal funds

desmoinesdem — Mon, 13 May 2013 18:15:00 GMT

State Senator Tom Courtney has asked newly appointed Iowa State Auditor Mary Mosiman to conduct "a special audit of the use of HAVA (Help America Vote Act) funds by Secretary of State Matt Schultz." Courtney has been a leading critic of Schultz's policies to combat alleged voter fraud. He previously asked State Auditor David Vaudt and the federal Office of Inspector General to look into Schultz's use of HAVA funds to pay for criminal investigations. Courtney points out that federal funding is intended for "educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights and voting technology."

An Iowa Senate press release containing background on Courtney's request is after the jump, along with the full text of Courtney's letter to Mosiman. She would presumably have to assign a different staff member of the Auditor's office to conduct any inquiry, since she's worked for Schultz for more than two years, running the Secretary of State's Office elections division. Mosiman has publicly defended Schultz's policies on alleged voter fraud, including photo ID requirements that most Iowa county auditors oppose.

The criminal investigations have so far uncovered a few allegedly improper voter registrations by ex-felons and a few instances of non-citizens allegedly registering to vote or casting ballots in local or state elections. To my knowledge, those charges have not led to any convictions yet. Three cases of alleged wrongful voting by non-citizens were dropped in March because the investigating DCI agent was called up for active military duty.
Iowa Senate press release, May 13:

State Senator: New State Auditor should investigate Secretary of State's use of federal funds
Auditor should step in because federal agency has turned into 'toothless tiger'
DES MOINES - A State Senator today formally requested that Iowa's new State Auditor conduct a thorough audit of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz's misuse of federal funding for his high-profile voter purge campaign.
In a letter sent this morning to newly appointed State Auditor Mary Mosiman, State Senator Tom Courtney of Burlington stated that federal law requires Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds to be used only "for educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights and voting technology." (LETTER ATTACHED)
"Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz is currently using HAVA funds on the unallowable expense of hiring a law enforcement officer to conduct criminal investigations of Iowans," Courtney wrote in his letter.
There is no evidence that Schultz has requested that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) amend Iowa's state plan to use the HAVA funds to pay the salary and operational costs of a criminal investigator. In addition, the Secretary of State has not convened a meeting of the State of Iowa HAVA Advisory Committee since he took office in January 2011.
Last September, Senator Courtney asked then State Auditor David Vaudt and federal Office of Inspector General in the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to investigate Schultz's use of HAVA funds.
Vaudt responded by saying that he was seeking guidance from the federal Office of Inspector General. "I wanted to let you know that we are pursuing it, but we must wait on some guidance from the Inspector General to ensure we can perform the audit as efficiently as possible," Vaudt wrote in a letter to Courtney.
Last month, the Inspector General's office informed Courtney that they were unable to conduct a thorough investigation at this time because of budget cuts and because of political gridlock in Washington, D.C.
In Courtney's letter today to Auditor Mosiman, he wrote:
"It is important that your office takes a lead role in this matter because we were recently informed that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, a federal agency that usually oversees the use of HAVA funds, is a toothless tiger. Budget cuts have left the agency incapable of conducting an investigation. In additional, the U.S. Senate has failed to confirm appointees to the Commission. As a result, there are four vacancies on the four-member Commission."
Previously, the State Auditor's office diligently reviewed the use of HAVA funds by the Secretary of State. In fact, a June 30, 2007, audit of the Secretary of State's use of HAVA funds found that "Section 101 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 states that funds may be used for educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights and voting technology."

Letter from State Senator Tom Courtney:

May 13, 2013
Dear Ms. Mosiman:
Congratulations on your appointment as Iowa's new State Auditor.
I am writing to renew my request for a special audit of the use of HAVA (Help America Vote Act) funds by Secretary of State Matt Schultz.
Your office must take the lead role in this matter because we were recently informed that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, a federal agency that usually oversees the use of HAVA funds, is a toothless tiger. Budget cuts have left the agency incapable of conducting an investigation. In addition, the U.S. Senate has failed to confirm appointees to the Commission. As a result, there are four vacancies on the four-member Commission.
Previously, the State Auditor's office diligently reviewed the use of HAVA funds by the Secretary of State. In fact, a June 30, 2007, audit of the Secretary of State's use of HAVA funds found that "Section 101 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 states that funds may be used for educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights and voting technology."
As you know, Secretary of State Matt Schultz has used HAVA funds to pay the salary and operational costs for an Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation Agent to do a "criminal investigation" of registered voters since August 6, 2012.
Neither the State of Iowa's "Help America Vote Act State Plan" adopted on July 17, 2003, nor amendments submitted on June 9, 2005, and September 10, 2008, includes the use of HAVA funds to pay the salary and operational costs of a criminal investigator to search for voter fraud.
There is no evidence that the Secretary of State has requested through the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to amend Iowa's state plan to use the HAVA funds to pay the salary and operational costs of a criminal investigator.
Based on this information, I am renewing my request for your office to conduct a thorough audit into the questionable uses of HAVA funding by the Iowa Secretary of State.
I would appreciate hearing from your office by May 31 on how you intend to proceed with this matter.
Sincerely,

Branstad taps Mary Mosiman for state auditor

desmoinesdem — Mon, 13 May 2013 14:35:00 GMT

Governor Terry Branstad announced this morning that Mary Mosiman will be Iowa's new state auditor. She replaces David Vaudt, who resigned last month to become chairman of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

Mosiman served as Story County Auditor for ten years before Matt Schultz hired her to run the elections division of the Iowa Secretary of State's office. She is a certified public accountant, which Branstad said was a "major requirement" as he searched for Vaudt's successor.

After the jump I've posted the governor's press release, containing more background on Mosiman. She will serve as auditor until after next year's elections. I assume she will become the Republican nominee for state auditor in 2014 as well. I have not heard yet about any Democrat planning to run for that office. Iowa Democrats did not field a candidate against Vaudt in 2006. Jon Murphy launched his 2010 campaign less than five months before the general election.

Branstad names CPA Mary Mosiman as new state auditor
May 13, 2013
Gov. Terry E. Branstad today named Ames CPA Mary Mosiman, AGE, as Iowa's new state auditor, following last month's announcement by David Vaudt that he was resigning to become the new chairman of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). His last day was May 3.
Mosiman currently serves as deputy secretary of state under Matt Schultz. Her first day is May 13.
"I had two major requirements for Iowa's state auditor: that the individual was a CPA, and that the individual would adhere to the sound budgeting principles followed by David Vaudt," said Branstad. "In Mary, we found that and more. She is a talented, passionate public servant who will keep a very close watch over Iowa's tax dollars."
Prior to serving as the deputy secretary of state, Mosiman served as the Story County Auditor and Commissioner of Elections, from 2001-2010. She is a graduate of Iowa State University with a degree in accounting.
"I am honored to accept this position, and will do my best to earn the respect of Iowans as well as validate the confidence of the governor," said Mosiman. "David Vaudt provided an excellent service to Iowans in his role as the 'Taxpayers Watchdog.' I look forward to building on his efforts. Working with Iowa's leaders to maintain sound budgeting principles, communicating state budget information, and providing all the necessary audit responsibilities will be my top priorities."
Branstad and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds launched their formal search for auditor on April 5, seeking individuals who would adhere to the sound budgeting principles as follows:
• Avoid the use of one-time money for ongoing expenses.
• Refrain from standing appropriations.
• Resist implementing new programs in the middle of the fiscal year.
• Avoid multi-year accelerating commitments.
• Accurately determine state revenue and expenses.
• Align expenses and revenue in the same fiscal year.
• Avoid funding programs through property taxes or fees.
• Reject diversion of funds statutorily authorized for a specific objective to other purposes.
"Mary Mosiman will be a partner in ensuring Iowa's budget remains stable and predictable," said Reynolds. "We look forward to working with her as we continue the great progress we have made in closing the state's $900 million budget gap and building up our cash reserve and economic emergency fund."
Mosiman and her husband Daniel live in Ames and have four daughters. She is a member of the Iowa Society of CPAs, is a past president of the Nevada Rotary, and is an active member of the Gilbert Education Foundation.

Weekend open thread: Rand Paul in Iowa edition

desmoinesdem — Sun, 12 May 2013 12:05:00 GMT

What's on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Rand Paul was in Cedar Rapids on Friday to headline the Republican Party of Iowa's spring fundraiser. Links and highlights are after the jump. Nothing I read convinced me that Paul has any chance of becoming president someday, but count on him to try.

Speaking of Rand, did you know that he was never board-certified? I learned that recently from an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon. After I mentioned that Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks is also an ophthalmologist, she looked up Miller-Meeks in the academy database and commented, "She's well-trained." Miller-Meeks did her residency at the University of Iowa and a fellowship at the University of Michigan. She is board-certified and was re-certified about ten years ago.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome. In previous years I've posted Mother's Day links here, here, and here. Best wishes to those who celebrate today, and healing thoughts to those who grieve on Mother's Day.
The Iowa Republican blog's Kevin Hall liveblogged the Iowa GOP's Lincoln Dinner event, for those who want to know about the rest of the speeches and the notable attendees. This was my favorite line from Hall's post:

7;23 pm - I am wondering how many references to Abraham Lincoln we will hear tonight, since this is the Lincoln Dinner, and Rand Paul's father thinks [what] Lincoln did was merely a way to seize power.

Hall also pointed out that Paul screwed up the television networks' audio feed by moving away from the podium. When he runs for president, he'll need to stop making rookie mistakes.

Paul went after Hillary Clinton hard over last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya. The crowd went wild. (Senator Chuck Grassley had already gotten a huge response when he said it was time to hold the Obama administration accountable for Benghazi.) David Lauter reported for the Los Angeles Times,

Sen. Rand Paul sharply attacked former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, declaring that her actions in the months leading up to the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya last year were "inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office." [...]
In the months before the attacks, he noted, the State Department repeatedly had turned down requests from diplomatic personnel in Libya for more security. Clinton, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Paul sits, said that the cables asking for additional resources had been handled by lower-level officials in the department and had never reached her desk.
That, Paul said, was exactly the problem.
When asked by committee members whether she had read those requests, "She said, 'No.' She says, 'I'm busy, I get lots of cables,'" Paul said. "A I say, Look, I don't expect you to read every cable from Bulgaria or Estonia, but I do expect you from one of the five most dangerous countries in the world, Libya, to be reading those cables.' "
Administration officials have said Congress did not provide enough money to cover all the State Department's security needs, but Paul ridiculed that argument, pointing to examples of other places where State spent money on lesser priorities.

It's as if this guy never heard of embassy attacks during the Reagan and Bush presidencies. When terrorists attacked us in Beirut in 1983, 241 servicemen were killed. Reagan's Defense Secretary later claimed to have "begged" the president to put the Marines in a "more defensible position."

I know that Republicans are excited about anything that gives them hope to beat Hillary Clinton, but she would destroy Rand Paul in a general election. Repeating "Benghazi" 1,001 times will be about as effective as all the "Slick Willie" talk was against Bill Clinton during the 1990s.

On Friday afternoon, Paul held a press conference in Cedar Rapids. O.Kay Henderson posted the audio at Radio Iowa. He criticized the Internal Revenue Service for the way bureaucrats scrutinized tax documents from tea party groups.

"I'm offended when any kind of government entity targets people for their political or religious beliefs," Paul said, "so it's, you know, particularly offensive, since I'm one of the groups they were targeting. They didn't audit me personally, but, you know, government should never be used to bully people."

A lot of those tea party groups are just astroturf. The abuse of tax-exempt status is a much bigger problem in this country than the IRS hassling a few tea party activists.

According to Henderson, Paul "described himself as 'the bridge between the House and Senate' in the current immigration reform debate." You can bank on that issue hurting him in the 2016 Iowa caucuses.

Finally, Paul told reporters that he wants to be part of making the GOP more appealing to the middle of the electorate.

"I think people are looking for something different. You might accuse me of being not exactly the traditional cookie-cutter Republican," Paul told reporters on an afternoon of political events in Cedar Rapids. "I do know the GOP needs to grow and I want to be part of growing the GOP." ...]
The party needs to change, Paul said Friday, and that means taking another look at policies that have alienated some groups. For instance, Paul favors relaxing federal sentencing laws for drug crimes, which disproportionately penalize racial minorities.
"We need to have a Republican Party that looks like the rest of America. We need a more inclusive, diverse party," he said. "We cannot compete unless we are going to go out and say to African-Americans, we want you in our party." [...]
On Friday, Paul met with about 10 evangelical pastors, an influential group in Iowa's Republican caucuses, and was to speak at the Iowa state party's annual Lincoln Day dinner. He was expected to meet with a Republican women's group at a Cedar Rapids-area home in the afternoon and speak at a county GOP breakfast Saturday. [...]
Among the challenges Paul faces is explaining his opposition to a federal gay marriage ban to influential cultural conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina. Paul says he would fight gay marriage at the state level, an explanation that suffices for Tamara Scott, among Iowa's leading Christian conservatives.

Adam Sullivan of the Iowa City Press-Citizen covered Paul's speech to GOP activists in North Liberty on Saturday.

Paul, who also spoke in Cedar Rapids on Friday night, said the Tea Party movement in the last few years has been fueled by discontent with both parties.
"It was a reaction not only to bad things Democrats were doing but also reaction to some Republicans voting to bail out business and big business in particular," Paul told about 100 people gathered at the North Liberty Community Center. "A lot of people in here may have a small business - if you go under taxpayers not coming to bail you out."
Paul criticized federal policymakers for failing to address the United States' $16 trillion debt. He pointed out that even the controversial sequester budget cuts from earlier this year don't actually decrease spending, but instead only slow projected spending growth.
Paul called for a flat 17 percent income and corporate tax, but said he'd support almost any tax proposal that decreases federal revenue. Paul harshly criticized those who support raising taxes on high earners.
"If you want to help poor people, you have to help rich people. ... Poor people work for rich people," Paul said.

There's a great bumper sticker slogan: Paul 2016, because poor people work for rich people.