Culver’s Bonding Bill In Doubt?
- Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 4:33
- Iowa
- 773 views
- 5 comments
A number of rural Democrats in the Iowa House of Representatives refuse to support Governor Chet Culver’s $750 million bonding proposal. The proposal is Governor Culver’s signature piece of legislation, which he announced during his Condition of the State speech in January, and for which he campaigned across the state advocating for its passage last month.
Speaker of the Iowa House Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal support the concept, but Republicans and 71% of the people the Des Moines Register polled on the issue think it’s a bad idea. Now, with a handful of Democrat legislators refusing to support it, Culver’s bonding proposal may suffer the same fate as the prevailing wage bill did in the beginning of the session – an embarrassing defeat.
In an article by James Lynch of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Rep. Dick Taylor (D-Cedar Rapids) said Culver’s 20-year $750 million plan “will not pass without bipartisan support.” Rep. Nate Willems (D-Lisbon) said that opposition is coming from Democrats in rural districts “who are not predisposed to bonding.” Both Willems and Taylor indicated that they were looking to Republican representatives from Linn County to help find the votes needed to pass the proposal.
Finding bipartisan support for Culver’s bonding proposal will be difficult, but not impossible. Culver and the Democrats have pledged to use some of the borrowed money to help with flood recovery, which would make it difficult for a Linn County legislator to vote against. It is obvious that both Rep. Taylor and Rep. Willems are trying to paint freshmen Linn County legislators Rep. Renee Schulte and Rep. Nick Wagner into a corner.
The problem with such a strategy is that the public is very weary of borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars for public works projects that will not create any permanent jobs. Speaker Murphy and Majority Leader Gronstal also have not created any good will with the minority party by not allowing a vote on a marriage amendment to the Iowa Constitution following the Supreme Count’s recent opinion on the issue.
It is very telling when legislative Democrats, with their six seat majority in the House and their seven seat majority in the Senate, go to the media and say they need bipartisan support to pass a piece of legislation. That means either that piece of legislation is so radical that their own caucus refuses to support it, or they know that passing it on a party-line vote could come back to haunt them on Election Day.
This is the second time this legislative session that Iowa Democrats have stated they need bipartisan support to pass a bill. The first was their proposed eight-cent increase to the gas tax, which was only supported by 13% of the people polled by the Des Moines Register.
If Iowa Democrats are interested in passing bipartisan legislation, they should bring up the marriage amendment for a vote in the House and Senate. Unlike the gas tax, federal deductibility, prevailing wage, doctor shopping, and Culver’s bonding proposal, there are plenty of votes to pass a marriage amendment. Democrats know this, and that’s why Speaker Murphy and Majority Leader Gronstal will not let that bill see the light of day.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
5 Comments on “Culver’s Bonding Bill In Doubt?”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I find it interesting that these folk’s never have understood the concept of not spending(way)more than you have. This is no different than you or I getting into financial trouble, then using our good credit rating to max out all the credit cards. The amount of spending from the last session wasn’t even sustainable before the financial downturn of the past year. There are other States that kept their spending in check and now are in relatively good shape financially. Gee, I wonder what party is in charge of those legislatures and Governor’s offices?
there is no reason that ONE REPUBLICAN should vote for this massive debt scheme!!! stay strong!
I have a quick question. Why is the bonding bill now recast as a “flood relief” bill?
I mean, didn’t Loebsack and Braley secure hundreds of millions for the flood victims? Where’s that federal money? Didn’t they also secure millions more in the “stimulus” bill for those same victims? Where’s that money? And didn’t Linn County voters just authorize a local option sales tax to pay for flood recovery? Where’s that money? And didn’t the Iowa Legislature authorize millions of dollars for flood victims? Where’s that money?
Does anyone else see this fraud for what it is? Use the flood victims to get more boondoggle spending that has, in fact, nothing to do with flood recovery?
And let me ask one final question: what poor person ever spent himself or herself into prosperity? Isn’t excessive spending and borrowing exactly what got the US and Iowa in this mess? How, after railing against the deficits and debt that Bush supposedly racked up can the Democrats do this with a straight face?
If Democrats think this is such a good idea, they should realize the political upside and do it without a single Republican vote, and enjoy the success that will come from their actions.
Dick Taylor and Nate Willems are looking towards Republican members from Linn County to support the bonding plan?? Fat chance of that happening..
If Willems and Taylor were so interested in making sure Linn County was getting flood relief, .then why weren’t they out there raising hell when the RIO office was playing politics in not calling a special session last year for flood relief? Never heard a peep from either of them when it came to light that RIO was wasting money on carpeting offices and on renting buses from out of state for “flood tours”.
Of course you wouldnt hear them say a peep about that stuff…they’re too busy feeding at the trough of the union special interests that fund their campaigns and that would benefit from Culver’s bonding plan.
And further more, if Bonding is such a fantastic idea, why aren’t the Democrats willing to pass it on their own Party Line vote, and take all the credit for ‘doing good’.