Rule 60 allows House members to withdraw a bill that has been in committee for eighteen legislative days. The marriage amendment bill met that requirement this past Friday. For the actual bill to be placed on the debate calendar, it must receive at least 51 votes.

That means seven Democrats must join with the 44 Republicans for the bill to advance. The following Democrat State Representatives have either voted in favor of this procedure last year, or said that they support letting the people of Iowa vote on this critical issue. By the end of the day, we should know if Representatives really support traditional marriage or not.

Curt Hanson
Dolores Mertz
Mike Reasoner
Larry Marek
Geri Huser
Brian Quirk
Kurt Swaim
Wayne Ford

So much to talk about, so little time. Let’s get started

Tebow Ad

In short, a missed opportunity. The tackling version was stupid (and no, not because it incites violence, which only stupid people would believe). The other version was okay, but could have been a little more… okay, a lot more direct.

Most of the people who saw the ad are not going to go to the Focus on the Family website to see the rest of the story as the ad instructed them to do, and so they are going to miss the best part of the story.

Their baby’s loss.

Palinpalooza Weekend

In short, a mixed bag. The Tea Party speech was fine. Lots of red meat for the hungry crowd. We’ve all probably heard about the post-speech Q & A session and the hand-notes and such. Not the greatest idea, especially given that she has to know people will criticize her for any little thing.

On the other hand, she had one of her best interviews with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Overall, I do think she is improving substantively. If she continues that climb, she’ll be one to watch.

Obama’s Slow Decline

This guy’s presidency is like a train wreck in slow motion. You know that any second the bottom is going to fall out and he’s going to crash and burn, as slowly, more and more people realize how very bad he is for our country.

The Hotline is reporting that Obama’s approval ratings are now at a lowly 44%. Those who disapprove of his performance stand at 47%. Among independents, only 29% approve of his performance.

I’d feel bad for him if he weren’t royally screwing up our country.

Politics, however, isn’t an arena where normal people play and common sense reigns supreme. Like clockwork, State Representative Rick Olson, the Chairman of the House Labor Committee, introduced House Study Bill 702, a bill that would gut Iowa’s right to work status which has been the law in the state for more than 60 years. The legislation would force non-union members to pay union dues as a condition of their employment.

Labor unions such as AFSCME and SEIU are hell-bent to pass some or all of their four legislative priorities before this fall’s general elections, and with Democrats now feeling vulnerable, they may be inclined to pass pro-union legislation in order to earn union support in the up-coming elections.

While it’s easy to see why Iowa Democrats might feel the need to make sure the state’s largest unions are happy and motivated leading up to Election Day, the public overwhelmingly opposes these labor bills. The most recent TIR/Concordia Group poll, shows that 61% of those surveyed would be more likely to vote against Governor Culver if he supported a bill that would end Iowa’s right to work laws.

The TIR/Concordia Group poll shows that public opposition to the union agenda has actually grown in that last seven months. In July of 2009, 50% of those surveyed would be more likely to vote against Governor Culver if he supported a bill that would end Iowa’s right to work laws. Since then, the number has jumped 11 points.

In 2007, a Wall Street Journal editorial said, “If the Iowa legislature wanted to chase jobs and employers out of the state, they couldn’t come up with a better plan than undermining right to work.” Regardless of public sentiment, Iowa Democrats seem willing to move forward with the labor union agenda.

Just yesterday, Democrats introduced another controversial labor bill – prevailing wage legislation. This piece of legislation saw a lot of activity last year when it was debated for some 97 hours in the Iowa House and was the subject of one of the most bizarre legislative stunts seen in the past 30 years when Speaker of the House Pat Murphy kept the voting machine open all weekend while he looked for the deciding vote.

Last year, proponents of the bill tried at the outset to narrow the bill’s scope by applying it only to public projects. They said that it would prevent shoddy work on public projects, prevent Iowa construction companies from hiring illegal workers, and prevent Iowa employers from avoiding payment of employees’ benefits. To the outside observer, they were never able to show clear examples of any of these claims. No public projects seem to be crumbling before our eyes, nor do Iowa construction companies treat their employees unfairly.

Opponents indicated that the prevailing wage bill would dramatically increase the costs of public projects, force local and state governments to scale back their building plans, and put small Iowa contractors at a competitive disadvantage as compared to large out-of-state contractors. In other words, it would have the exact opposite impact that the bill’s proponents argued. Rather than raise wages and increase employment, it would have likely cost wages and jobs, something the state of Iowa can’t afford.

Unions in Iowa represent only 10.6% of all Iowa workers according to the US Department of Labor. We’ve all heard stories about declining union membership over the past decades, and this figure really brings it home. Only 1 in 10 Iowa workers are members of a union…so, of the 1.437 million working Iowans, only approximately 153,000 belong to a union. And, the potential maximum membership in unions in Iowa (i.e. the total number of people who could belong to a union) is about 187,000…meaning there are approximately 34,000 Iowans who work at an employer who has a bargaining unit present, but they have declined membership in the union.

Of these union members, approximately 40% (61,000) are state employees. That’s why AFSCME and SEIU have become the loudest voices in the pro-labor movement.

The state needs job growth, not more powerful labor unions. With more than 110,000 Iowans out of work, it’s interesting that Iowa Democrats have made the decision to side with the labor unions instead of the job creators. It is likely that if legislative Democrats and Governor Culver move forward with the labor agenda, the public will punish them at the poll this November. Not only are the Democrats on the wrong side of the issue, but the once again, they are ignoring the will of the people

Question:

Here are some of points made by critics of Chet Culver about his record. Please tell me for each one whether it makes you more likely to vote FOR or more likely to vote AGAINST him? If this issue does not matter to you or you don’t believe the statement is correct, just let me know. (RANDOMIZE) (IF ANSWERED:) And do you feel strongly about that or just somewhat?

Chet Culver tried to end Iowa’s right to work laws and supported other issues pushed by labor unions, who were big contributors to his campaign.

More For: 17% (2009) 15% (2010)

More Against: 50% (2009) 61% (2010)

Photo by Dave Davidson

Washington- The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has officially announced former Iowa State wrestling coach Jim Gibbons (IA-03) as an ‘On the Radar’ candidate, an important first step in its Young Guns program. Founded in the 2007-2008 election cycle by Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Young Guns program is a member-driven organization dedicated to electing open-seat and challenger candidates nationwide. Gibbons is running in Iowa’s Third Congressional District.

The Young Guns program is designed to assist Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives achieve goals and benchmarks throughout the election cycle focused on the fundamentals of a winning campaign. By achieving ‘On the Radar’ status, Gibbons has already proven his ability to build a successful campaign structure and achieve important fundraising goals.

“The NRCC is committed to working with Jim Gibbons as he continues to meet the rigorous goals of the Young Guns program,” said NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions. “Jim is an accomplished, independent leader who has already built significant momentum behind his campaign. I am confident that Republicans will be successful in our effort to defeat Leonard Boswell, who is an out-of-touch politician solely focused on his party’s big-government, big-spending agenda rather than job creation.”

Gibbons has a distinguished record of success both on and off the mat, but he is best known for his involvement with Iowa State’s wrestling program, where he was a three time All American wrestler. After winning the NCAA’s title in his weight class in 1981, Gibbons transitioned to coach, leading the Cyclones to the 1987 national championship. Under his leadership, the Cyclones produced 33 All Americans, 7 individual NCAA champions and several top four team performances. Gibbons remains active in the wrestling community by volunteer with various youth wrestling programs.

Having achieved certain benchmarks to place him on the road to victory, Gibbons now faces a new set of rigorous goals that will help him advance to the next level of the Young Guns program and help him build a competitive, effective and winning campaign.

For more information, click here.

Raised on a farm near Dexter in southwest Dallas County, Findley, 33, attended Drake University in Des Moines and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and History and minor in Russian with honors. After Drake, Findley attended the University of Chicago Law School. While at the University of Chicago, she served as Symposium Editor of The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, a law journal, and worked for small business clients in the Institute for Justice Clinic on Entrepreneurship to help entrepreneurs start their own businesses. Upon graduation from law school, she worked in private practice.

“Iowa needs an Attorney General who is a strong advocate for Iowa’s economy and understands what it takes to create private sector jobs in every community and in every county,” said Findley. “My background and experience have given me the understanding about what it takes to ensure Iowa is a family friendly state where jobs, opportunity and prosperity can thrive in every community. Small business is the engine for job growth– my office will be small business friendly,” she added.

Besides her work in private practice, Findley has served as Chief of Staff and senior Judiciary Committee staff member to Iowa Congressman Steve King (R-Kiron) since 2003. In her work with the Judiciary Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, she has dealt with and gained significant expertise on many of the most pressing legal issues of the day. As Chief of Staff to Congressman King, Findley serves 32 counties in western Iowa, managing six offices and staff.

Findley’s extensive education, experience, and understanding of the important legal issues facing Iowa are an asset. Her deep knowledge of Iowa politics and her proven track record as a successful manager and private practice attorney make her a strong choice to be Iowa’s next attorney general. Besides focusing on jobs, Findley says she will campaign on the need for Iowans to have a legal watchdog to hold state government accountable and enforce Iowa’s laws and the principles in our Constitution.

“I will bring the work ethic I learned working on our farm in Dexter to the Attorney General’s office. The office has been under one-party control since 1978. I want to serve as your legal watchdog and bring openness, accountability and transparency to our state government,” said Findley.

Current Attorney General Tom Miller has served for parts of four decades and Findley believes Iowans are looking for a fresh perspective. Findley will be an Attorney General who is accessible, a good listener, hardworking, energetic and willing to hear from Iowans throughout the state. A conservative Republican, Findley says she offers a strong contrast with Miller and the current status quo and looks forward to traveling the state.

“Tom Miller has spanned four decades in the job and I think Iowans are ready for a new direction and a fresh perspective,” said Findley. “I look forward to hearing from Iowans and bringing our positive vision for the future of Iowa,” she concluded.

To learn more about Brenna and her positive vision for Iowa, go to www.FindleyforIowa.com.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks is back again after she became the nominee in 2008. She won a primary that few believed she could against Peter Teahen. There are noticeable differences between her 2008 and 2010 campaigns. In 2008, she assembled a solid team of political operatives to advise her. With their help she was able to raise enough money to pay for really good TV and radio ads. This gave her instant credibility, and while she was the candidate from Ottumwa, she looked like a big time candidate.

This year, none of Miller-Meeks’ original team are back in the fold except for Vander Plaats campaign manager Eric Woolson. It’s a little odd that Woolson is wearing two hats and has two difficult primaries to win, but he’s just being paid to do Miller-Meeks’ communication work.

Miller-Meeks ended up losing by a much wider margin than anyone expected. Some blame the flood, others point to Obama being on the ballot, and some think she ignored her handler’s advice. This time around, Miller-Meeks has replaced the “I’m a conservative wink, wink” strategy with a much more overt “I don’t need them conservatives” mantra and it seems to be wearing thin with voters south of Iowa City. Her campaign this time around lacks excitement and money almost as much as it does professional guidance.

Miller-Meeks is an idiot for over-reacting and over-analyzing her 2008 campaign. She had some good people on board last time, people she might again need if she is to be successful.

Chris Reed joins the field this time around following a forgettable candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2008. Reed actually won that primary by getting in late and with just enough money to buy his self some nice suits. The theme of his candidacy is “I’m more conservative than Millier-Meeks” and “Rathje is a jerk”. The first one we already know and the second is evidence that he is in this race to settle a score over the senate primary from two years ago. Chris, you won that primary. Move on. At this rate we will be seeing a Reed vs. Rathje battle for the right to be the republican nominee for Linn County recorder in 2012.

Chris Reed is an idiot for not doing more to cement himself as the alternative to Miller-Meeks.

Steve Rathje. This one is interesting. Rathje also had a forgettable involvement in the 2008 U.S. Senate primary after having been in that race for nearly 6 years and had a third place finish to show for it. Having said that, this time he raised over $60,000 and has polished his stump speech, which after 8 years of giving it should be polished.

I wouldn’t call it a war chest, more like a good wad of cash in his campaign cigar box. Although it is more than his opponents have combined and nearly 20 times what Reed has on hand. I did laugh however when team Rathje sent out a press release saying they raised another $15k. Settle down there Steve, keep them guessing.

Rathje is not in a bad position, except what else has he got going for him? Does he have a grassroots network? What about a professional experienced team of advisors and staff? Is his campaign about more than just ego? Like his opponents, the answers are no, no and no. Rathje is the frontrunner if only for his fundraising which brings me to another inconvenient point.

Rathje isn’t an idiot… yet. I’m sure he will find a way to screw up, like skipping a televised debate or something.

While the 2nd CD primary kind of reminds me of a bad reality show, I hope these candidates realize the ultimate goal isn’t winning the primary, but beating Dave Loebsack. It is not enough to win a primary for the sake of one’s ego. You must win the general election. To not have a minimum of $100,000 after the first reporting period is a clear sign it is unlikely that there will ever be that much in any of their coffers. It will take between $400-500,000 after the primary to be competitive in the general against Loebsack. And don’t fool yourselves, donors do look at past ability to raise money and will be woefully underwhelmed.

So why is it that these are the only choices for the second district to choose from? The answer is not to look at who is running, but rather who isn’t. The A-Team if you will is sitting this year out and eyeing 2012 redistricting. Republicans in the second district should have urged someone new to step up and seize this opportunity with the Democrat brand imploding.
Instead, the entire 2nd District is this week’s idiot.

One more idiot…

The San Diego Chargers – Always sucks when you let a player walk who ends up being a Super Bowl MVP. IDIOTS

Yesterday, the Des Moines Register released some of the information from its Iowa Poll. The poll asked if people supported the Tea Party movement regardless of their political affiliation. Forty-five percent of those surveyed said that they did not consider themselves to be supporters of the Tea Party movement, but 33% did. The interesting part of the Iowa Poll is that, of the the 33% who support the Tea Party, 49% are independents, 34% are Republicans, and 17% are Democrats. Many people have wrongfully assumed that the Tea Party movement was mostly a Republican effort. It’s not.

Even with all the state and national conventions, the media attention, and the countless of groups that the Tea Party movement has created in the last year, it remains undefined, unorganized, and without a core mission.

As it stands right now, the Tea Party movement in Iowa can be all things to all people. Some Republicans who are upset with the GOP’s lack of focus on social issues have sought refuge with the Tea Party. At the same time, moderate or libertarian Republicans who think that the GOP focuses too much on social issues have also joined the Tea Party ranks.

Ironically, when well known Republicans like Haley Barbour, who is the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, promote a big tent philosophy, many well known social conservatives get angry and upset. Yet, some of these people have become the loudest supporters of the Tea Party movement, which is funny because the Tea Party movement is nothing more than the ultimate big tent.

For the most part, the Tea Party is comprised of people who think that our leaders in Washington D.C. are out of touch with the people on Main Street. They opposed the Wall Street bailout, out of control spending, massive debt and deficits, and much of President Obama’s agenda. However, if it ever chooses to be an actual third party, it will be forced to address a number of issues that are divisive to many within its own ranks.

Right now, the Tea Party benefits from being the ‘none of the above’ option for the American people. Yet, if they ever want to be more than a loose confederation of independent groups, they will have to tackle issues that they currently don’t have to deal with. This is why it may be in the best interest of the Tea Party to remain ambiguous.

While the media is captivated by the Tea Party movement, its members are merely doing what the founders of our government thought all citizens should do – hold their elected officials accountable. For far too long the general public has been apathetic about what is going on at all levels of government. Once in a while, the silent majority of American would be aroused to defeat things like nationalized healthcare in the nineties, or blanket amnesty to illegals just a few years ago, but after those issues settle down, the people would simply go back to their normal lives.

This is where the Tea Party movement is different. For almost a year now, they have found a way to stay active and engaged even as the issue set has changed. If one had to guess what was fueling the Tea Party movement, it would have to be the liberal agenda that President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi continue to pursue even thought the public vehemently opposes their proposals. Without this liberal agenda to fight, the Tea Party could be over.

There is no doubt that a number of people, myself included, consider themselves to be supportive of the Tea Party movement. We will begin to see what kind of effect the Tea Party is having in the June primaries as well as in November. While it is safe to assume that more people will go to the polls, I don’t think we are about to see a radical shift once the ballots are counted.

What the Tea Party movement is really about is holding all of our elected officials accountable to the will of the people, regardless of political affiliation. This is something to celebrate and something that members of both parties should embrace. The sad part is that it is the one thing that our founders expected us to do from day one, and it’s the one thing we’ve failed to do – until now.

Share your comments on her speech below.

Photo by Dave Davidson

TEXT ‘TIR’ to 72466

You’ll win with breaking news alerts on the issues Iowa Republicans care about, and you’ll be entered in a contest to win 4 Free Tickets to the University of Iowa v. Northwestern wrestling match in Iowa City on Friday, Feb. 12th.

The winner will be notified Wednesday at noon.

Because Iowa’s budgets are built on the level of spending from the previous year’s budget, lawmakers are faced with an record deficit as a result of too much irresponsible and unsustainable spending. The Legislature cannot adjourn this winter until it has dealt with Iowa’s unprecedented $1 billion self-inflicted deficit. Unlike Washington D.C., Iowa’s Constitution thankfully requires a balanced budget.

With this news, Governor Culver, late last year, hired an expensive out-of-state consultant using taxpayer dollars to offer areas where Iowa could re-organize government. In December, these consultants published a document suggesting Iowa could save $1.7 billion over five years with hundreds of millions of the savings in the first year alone. While the projections and expectations were impressive, there was very little evidence to support the consultants’ claims.

Soon after, a select few of the lawmakers took the consultants’ report and began crafting their own government re-organization bill. With expectations for that bill to bring about savings of $341 million dollars right away, they sent it off to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency to be analyzed and scored. The non-partisan analysts returned an estimate of approximately $71 million in savings. When that estimate is added to the projected savings from an executive order containing management changes and an early retirement plan, the real amount of savings is actually only a small fraction of what the people of Iowa were lead to believe by Governor Culver and legislative Democrats just weeks ago.

Yet, those numbers are not just being used to discuss the re-organization bill – they are also part of Governor Culver’s proposed budget. This act alone, could become another financial headache for Iowa’s taxpayers. Earlier this week, the governor was quoted in The Des Moines Register telling reporters not to nit pick over the numbers he used in his budget even though they were much more generous than the real numbers used by the non-partisan analysts. He called the tens of millions of dollars in difference between his numbers and the real numbers “a minor difference.”

How many Iowa families or employers could afford another of Governor Culver’s unbalanced budgets and the consequences that would bring? The likely result would be another across-the-board cut which would lead to another of Governor Culver’s job-killing property tax increases.

Nonetheless, the Iowa Senate debated and passed a government re-organization bill this week. Senate Republicans offered over fifteen amendments and provided a different perspective to the re-organization process. Since many of the Democrat proposals are short-term and merely just shift costs around without saving money, Senate Republicans offered amendments that would fundamentally and systemically reform government. Unfortunately, most were defeated on partisan lines.

Our goal is and will continue to be to dramatically and systemically reform government and save the taxpayers more of their hard earned money. With the belief that real government re-organization begins with the understanding that we must end the culture of reckless spending that has permeated state government the last three years, here is just a sampling of the common sense amendments and solutions that Senate Republicans presented during debate.

We offered to sunset all government programs over a four year period. This would allow the Legislature and agencies to see whether each program is producing results. From there, decisions can be made on whether we cut or continue each program.

We also want to force a two-thirds vote on the passage of all bonding bills in the Legislature. In the past few years, it’s been the bond spending that has increased our deepening financial hole. Had this rule already been in place, Governor Culver’s unpopular temporary make-work program would not have been enacted. This idea alone, had it been in place last year, would have saved taxpayers $1.7 billion dollars. We also put forward a proposal that the Legislature pass a Constitutional Amendment that limits state spending to no more than 99 percent of revenues. To Senate Republicans, it’s just common sense not to have the state spend more than it takes in.

Senate Republicans also put forward ideas that would get public employee wages in line with the private sector and require those employees to share in the cost of their health insurance, thereby building a stronger partnership between government and our public employees. We also think it is past time to end the practice of taxpayer funded lobbyists.

In an era where so many decisions seem to happen behind closed doors and there is a deficit of accountability and transparency, Senate Republicans proposed solutions that would give taxpayers new benchmarks so they are more aware of what their government is doing. Just one example would be to have the State Auditor create measurements that oversee the reorganization process.

However, the House of Representatives has yet to begin full debate on their bill and it is likely that they will eventually pass something that is different from the Senate. House Republicans have already indicated they plan to offer an additional $290 million in savings, though it is unclear whether Democrats will accept their plans or vote them down in partisan fashion. Before any bill makes it to the governor’s desk, identical bills will have to pass both chambers so there is much yet to be decided.

Though some aspects of the bill are a positive step forward, Senate Republicans believe we should continue to strive for fundamental, systemic reforms. Republicans will continue to offer our ideas in hopes of improving the bill when it comes back for debate in the Senate. This opportunity still presents a wonderful chance to not only reorganize but also reduce government and as always.

Written by Paul McKinley