Branstad Bullies Iowa about Biennial Budgeting

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s recent insistence on biennial rather than annual budgeting is unreasonable.  The advantage of biennial budgeting is that it requires planning further ahead.  Since there is nothing about annual budgeting that prevents planning ahead, however, this single advantage is hardly a persuasive reason to switch to biennial budgeting.  The disadvantages are several.  It is less flexible, it is less responsive to changing circumstances and it concentrates power in the hands of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch of government.   

Of course the concentration of power factor is attractive to Branstad.   It is convenient for him to overlook that what is important to him is also important to the legislature and to the people of Iowa, both of whom are better served by clear separation of power and the greater flexibility and responsiveness of annual budgeting.

The legislature should override his veto and adopt the budget they have carefully crafted by working through the compromises that were necessary to make it acceptable to a majority of the legislators of both parties.  Let us hope that our legislators will have the fortitude to keep Branstad from bullying them.

Relaxing gun carrying regulations = Craziness

If our legislaturers make more changes to gun laws like the ones now under consideration, we may need to change the country's name from the USA to the VSA.  (The Vigilante States of America.)

The Iowa Impeachment Debacle

Perhaps the Democrats of the Iowa House are taking too seriously the threats of their Republican colleagues calling for the impeachment of Iowa’s Supreme Court Justices.  In spite of the fact that a majority of Iowa voters were persuaded to vote not to retain the three justices on the ballot last November, it seems that hardly anyone is so thoroughly misinformed as to believe that any judicial ruling constitutes grounds for impeachment.  I suggest that, if the Republicans do propose impeachment, the Democrats should let the issue come to a vote without stretching out the debate.  It is unlikely that such a resolution will be approved by the House because only a small minority of the Republicans will be foolish enough to support it.  Even if the resolution should pass the house, it will surely not succeed in the Senate where 34 of the 50 members would have to find the justices guilty.  That simply will not happen, but the process will expose the proponents of impeachment as the fools that they are.

Stretching out a debate on an impeachment resolution will divert the House’s attention from other matters of considerably greater importance.  I say “give the fools a little rope, and they will hang themselves.”

Iowa's Misinformed Public

The news that members of the Iowa House of Representatives are pursuing impeachment of Iowa’s four remaining Supreme Court justices is stunning.  That Leader Paulson said he would not stand in the way of the effort is breathtaking. 

These people need some basic civics lessons. What the Supreme Court decided in April 2009 regarding same sex marriage was that the law prohibiting same sex marriage violated the Iowa constitution. The fact that a majority of Iowa voters voted against the three justices who were scheduled for retention in this year’s election shows how widespread is the misunderstanding of basic constitutional democracy, and it reflects badly on the whole state that so few of us understand that the court’s job is to interpret and preserve the constitution, especially when, in the judgment of the court, the other branches of government stray off course as the legislature and governor had done.  That is the court’s responsibility, its job, its reason for being.

It seems impossible that we have elected law makers who are so ignorant of the constitution. But we can hope that it may be one of those situations in which David Letterman might say “No, Wait. They’re not that ignorant.  They’re just exploiting the fact that most Iowa voters are that ignorant.”

Sen. Grassley's Abandonment of Integrity

I applaud the Des Moines Register’s editorial of November 9 criticizing Sen. Charles Grassley for his hypocrisy last week.  It’s too bad the Register didn’t notice this before the general election.   On November 4 Grassley responded to an Associated Press story about AARP’s health coverage for employees by criticizing AARP’s support of the recent partisan health care legislation because it “cut Medicare by almost $500 billion…Despite their employer’s support, AARP employees are learning that the health care law is not going to address the top priority of making health care coverage less expensive.”   

The Register rightly observed that, before the health reform act was passed, Grassley had applauded the concept of taxing high-cost health plans because their “Cadillac” coverage encourages people to overuse health services, driving up total health spending.  Now that health insurance reform is the law of the land and Grassley and Company are sworn to make Mr. Obama a one-term president, Grassley has completely reversed course in order to find grounds upon which to criticize the law. 

Sen. Grassley’s lack of integrity was just as blatant during the debate over the new law when he professed to pursuing bi-partisan cooperation with Sen. Max Baucus, all the while speaking out of the other side of his mouth with such antics as repeatedly telling crowds of Iowans that he opposed “pulling the plug on Grandma.”   For weeks he conveniently (for him) omitted noting that no such a provision had ever been proposed.

Following the general election of 2008, Sen. Grassley abandoned the integrity for which he had become famous over several decades, and that is why I did not vote for him this year.  I wish the Register had paid closer attention before it endorsed his reelection.  It was a mistake.

VOTE or Do Not Complain

Kathy Obradovich said it well in The Des Moines Register this morning.  One must vote in order to earn the right to complain after the election.

See:  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101102/OPINION01/11020357/1036/OPINION/Obradovich-Earn-the-right-to-complain-Vote-today

Anyone but Grassley

I disagree with the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Senator Grassley because he has abandoned the integrity which has persuaded me to vote for him in the past regardless of where he and I have stood on issues.  During the 2010 debates on health care, he claimed to be earnestly pursuing compromise with his more liberal colleagues with whom he disagreed, but he later admitted that he had merely been slowing things down in an attempt to kill the proposed legislation entirely.  During this time, he repeatedly and unashamedly voiced his opposition to “pulling the plug on Grandma,” feeding a common misunderstanding among less informed voters that the legislation being considered would do just that.  This reminded one of the notorious “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or “WMDs” of the GW Bush years:  if you say anything often enough, some people will come to believe it.

Grassley has defended his recent pattern of voting against nominees to judicial positions merely because they were nominated by our Democratic president by saying he believes Democrats were guilty of doing the same.  This is the pot calling the kettle black!  If he decries what he truly believes to be despicable behavior by his opponents, why would he imitate them?  Not because he believes it is the right thing to do!

Grassley’s abandonment of integrity in these matters reminds one of former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, whose rise to that office was largely accomplished by his effective prosecution of dishonest securities dealings while serving as Attorney General of New York.  Having established himself as a person of impeccable integrity, he was utterly disgraced by revelations of his patronizing high-priced prostitutes while claiming to be a faithful husband.  Spitzer’s indiscretions were considered exceedingly egregious precisely because of his reputation for great integrity, just as Grassley’s misguided partisanship during the last two years contrasts so sharply with his prior reputation for being a politician of extraordinary integrity.

Given the change in Grassley’s devotion to his constituents, my vote is going to Conlon.  Not only is she bright and competent, she is not Charles Grassley.