Floods of 2008 Revisited

It was 5 years ago today that flood waters crested in Cedar Rapids Iowa during the historic flood of '08. Here were my thoughts at the time. Originally posted a month later on 8-13-08.

A winter of near-record snowfalls here in Iowa, gave way to a spring in which we had our biggest tornado since 1976, wiping one town off the map and killing 7 people. Then, in July, Iowa saw its worst flooding since the Genesis deluge. This year's immoderate weather has given me ample reminder of why I hate Iowa. The response of Iowans has reminded me why I love it.

Flood waters on the Cedar River first hit the cities of Waterloo and Cedar Falls, knocking down bridges and flooding downtown areas. It then hit smaller towns like Vinton and Palo, flooding nearly the entire town, and lumbered onward toward the population center of Cedar Rapids.

Not to be outdone by rising flood waters, an Iowa twister suddenly lashed out, tearing through a Boy Scout camp, killing 4 young scouts and sending many more to the hospital.

Flood waters crept up on downtown Cedar Rapids engulfing first the "100 year flood plain," then the "500 year flood plain." Sandbagging the downtown area quickly proved to be futile and it was surrendered to the river. More than 3,900 homes had to be evacuated, creating over 24,000 homeless evacuees. Over 1300 city blocks were submerged under a river crest of 31.8 feet. (Flood stage is 12 feet.)

Damage to Iowa's lifeblood of crops was estimated at $2.7 billion. Property damages in Cedar Rapids alone were estimated at $736 million. Many talking heads on TV compared the Iowa floods to Hurricane Katrina.

There is one big difference between the two disasters though: Unlike New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and their ilk, our local officials didn't stand there wringing their hands, wondering what George Bush was going to do about it. When the flood waters came, local officials, non-profit organizations and private citizens alike all rolled up their sleeves and did what they could.

When Cedar Rapids' last remaining fresh-water pumping station was in danger of being engulfed the city asked for volunteer sandbaggers through the local media. 600 to 1000 volunteers arrived en-mass, so many that most had to be turned away. (Actually they were sent to help evacuate the hospital.) On the news, I saw people being rescued from flood waters in private bassboats and motorized duck blinds. People were so busy helping their neighbors that they plumb forgot to loot.

In my own small town, the municipal water-treatment plant was nearly swamped. City leaders asked for help sandbagging. I took off work early and when I arrived at the fire station at 1 p.m. the work was already done and the numerous volunteers had been sent home.

Many of the small towns affected called out their biggest asset: unpaid, volunteer firefighters, who quickly changed their job description to floodfighters. Local police and county emergency personnel served admirably, as did the Iowa National Guard. Churches and non-profit groups like the Salvation Army sprang into action, setting up shelters for evacuees and feeding the masses.

FEMA was on hand, to be sure, offering whatever assistance it could, and U.S. Coast Guard rescue crews helped survivors. But it was clear that LOCAL officials were running the show. It's called federalism, Mayor Nagin. Look into it.

All in all I'm pretty proud of how my fellow Iowans handled the worst of times. Iowa may not have mountains or oceans, we may not have celebrity or diversity, we may not have Broadway lights or the Vegas Strip, and we may not have the French Quarter, but we've got good folks in these parts. That's good enough.

Iowa In Top 15 Freest States

Ever wonder how Iowa stacks up against other states in the area of freedom?  Pretty well according to a recent study by Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  Iowa came in 13th in this study that "comprehensively ranks the American states on their public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres."  Iowa ranked 7th and 30th in the economic and personal freedom subcategories respectively.

According to the study, Iowa "particularly stands out on economic regulation. Iowa also has a light touch on land-use planning. Labor regulations are business friendly, with right-to-work laws [..] and a decent workers’-compensation regime." 

Iowa appears to be more of a mixed bag when it comes to government paternalism.  Private schools and homeschooling are over regulated while marijuana sentencing and asset forfeiture laws need reformed.  However, much gambling is allowed and most  PAC political contributions are unregulated.  The same-sex marriage ruling occurred after the period studied in the report (as did Iowa's new right-to-carry firearms law).

The study makes the following policy recommendations for Iowa:

"1.Improve the environment for personal freedom by cutting sin taxes and reforming marijuana sentencing guidelines.

"2.End private-school teacher licensing. Reduce standardized testing and notification requirements for homeschoolers.

"3.Reform asset forfeiture by placing the burden of proof on the government and redirecting proceeds to the general fund."

Hell and High Water

My stomping grounds along Iowa's Maquoketa River got more national attention than we would have liked this past weekend when massive flooding caused a dam failure.  (I'm sure most of you heard, unless you've been in a cave in Tora Bora.)

Upstream from the dam, record flood levels deluged the town of Manchester early Saturday afternoon.  This high water quickly overwhelmed the Delhi Dam south of Manchester and washed away the earthen causeway on the side of the concrete dam.  Hundreds of homes in the unincorporated community of Lake Delhi were damaged or destroyed.

The floodwaters from the ruptured dam rushed downstream toward the towns of Hopkinton and Monticello.  In my town of Monticello the call went out for help filling sandbags.  As soon as I was able to hand the kids off to my wife (who had been in Dubuque), I went down to the city shop and spent a couple hours helping fill sandbags.

The flood put a damper (pardon the pun) on the Great Jones County Fair, which was going on and caused millions of dollars in damages in Monticello. Despite all this, it could have been worse. Thank God no one was killed.

Although this is an extremely localized disaster, it has caused a lot of hardship for several small Iowa communities. I haven't seen any flood-specific relief funds yet, but if anyone desires to help you can can make an online donation to the Grant Wood Area Chapter of the Red Cross (serving the affected counties of Jones and Delaware) here.

Of course I can't go a whole post without pontificating about politics and good governance.  While I was down there filling sandbags I witnessed the various layers of government in action.  Lest I be accused of being an anarchist, I do see the use of some government and various levels for certain jobs.

I could certainly understand what many of the elected officials were trying to do.  The town mayor and a few city officials were coordinating the local efforts, including the sandbagging.  The county sheriff was there coordinating his deputies who were directing traffic from the increasing number of news vans and gawkers and performing countless other important tasks.

Even Governor Culver was on hand to check out the situation.  He ended up calling out the National Guard (although to where and to do what I'm not sure, my boy was disappointed that he never did see any "army trucks").  Although there probably wasn't much that the governor could do right away, in his role as chief executive of the state it was indeed appropriate for him to see if the state resources at his disposal could lend a hand.

The elected officials who really didn't need to be there were the state and federal legislators who showed up to "see first-hand" what was going on and "speed" recovery aid to the area.  I didn't even realize they were there until I was walking out to my car to leave, because they sure weren't out where we were filling sandbags. You could almost see them salivating at all the reporters and news vans around.

They were there for what they're always doing: getting their pictures taken and promising to dole out other peoples money, i.e. campaigning.  The legislature's job is to make laws, not personally deliver the goods.  They should appropriate emergency funds that the executive branch can quickly dispatch to disasters when needed.  Term limits would help ensure legislators from both parties think about what there job actually is, rather than how to keep it. 

As for the promise of federal help: as a constitutional purist who lives safe and dry up on a hill, I won't claim to speak for anyone else in my county, but I don't see that any of this is the federal government's damned business.  As I've written before, the argument that the Constitution's "general welfare clause" authorizes a power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (like disaster relief) doesn't hold water. 

Besides, if the federal government didn't syphon so much money out of the states it wouldn't have to "benevolently" shovel borrowed money back into them during emergencies.

Commission Says: "Regulate, Don't Ban Everclear"

In my post Everclear and Present Danger I wrote that the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission was mulling over whether to ban or increase regulations on the sale of highly concentrated alcohol (HCA), such as Everclear, after a Drake University student was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning from overindulging on it. Thursday the commission announced its recommendations. Although they did not recommend an outright ban on HCA, their recommendations can hardly be seen as a victory for those who support freedom of choice for Iowa consumers.

IABC's website lists the commission's four recommendations as follows:

1. Limit products over 100 proof to one listed size [750 ml for Everclear]
2. Look into drafting a rule to require registration (similar to pseudoephedrine) for products over 100 proof
3. Education - investigate opportunities for education on HCA in college communities, as well as design educational materials to be applied to bottles for distribution.
4. Limit products to no higher than 151 proof

Since the recommendations all increase government regulation, no doubt they will be pencil-whipped through and adopted quickly. (In contrast, any deregulation would require an uphill, tooth and nail battle.)

Supporters of regulating Everclear and other HCA's no doubt would argue that the state has a compelling interest in doing so since the state often has to assist those who injure themselves or others or ruin their own lives abusing the stuff. That is another perfect example of how government "assistance" always begets government intrusion into our lives. (In order to get rid of the intrusion, we must get rid of the assistance as well.)

Another troubling aspect of such regulation, if we follow the government's logic to its ultimate conclusion: If the state of Iowa can't trust its adult citizens with such a mundane decision as what size bottle of booze to buy, how can they trust us with self-governance, arms bearing, child rearing or any other activity upon which a free society depends?

Everclear and Present Danger

In its never-ending quest to keep its citizens safe from their own actions, by treating them all like idiot children, the state of Iowa is investigating whether to ban or severely regulate the sale of Everclear, a highly concentrated alcohol (HCA) beverage. In other states Everclear is available up to 95% alcohol (190 proof), but last year Iowa officials limited Everclear sold in this state to 75.5% alcohol (151 proof).

The Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission recently held a meeting at Drake University to hear public opinion on the topic. In November 2009 a Drake student was rushed to the hospital for alcohol poisoning after consuming copious amounts of Everclear, creating the massive debate about the drink in Iowa. Since one young college punk got sick on the stuff, obviously the state needs to make new regulations to restrict the freedom of three million other Iowans. After all, it wasn't that kid's fault, the other kids "made" him do it.

Holding its hearing at any college campus, much less one recently rocked by the near-death of one of its students, is probably not the best place to hear dispassionate and well-reasoned arguments calling for government restraint. The Commission probably doesn't want to hear those anyway.

If you would like the Commission to hear some, you can email comments on the topic to dusold@iowaabd and read public comments for and against increased regulation of HCA's at the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission's website.

Honey Creek Money Pit

In July I reported to you on Honey Creek Resort in southern Iowa. I pointed out at that time that, in addition to diverting funds (about $58 million) from other more legitimate government projects, the state was creating a taxpayer assisted entity that would directly compete with private industry. I argued that the jobs "created" at Honey Creek were actually jobs stolen from around the state.

Now the Cedar Rapids Gazette reports that in its first 9 months of operation the resort lost $900,000. A state audit showed that between September 2008 and June 2009 Honey Creek had revenues of $3.1 million but expenses of almost $4 million.

In a separate piece, Gazette columnist Todd Dorman, who visited the resort last summer, said, "Although some lawmakers are talking about pulling the plug on state ownership, I’m withholding judgment until I see how a fully completed resort does this year in a slightly more stable economy." True enough. Plenty of businesses lost money in the last year. Unfortunately I'd be opposed to government ownership of the resort even if it posted a tidy profit, for the philosophical reasons listed above.

Dorman also added the warning: "If the state’s going to own a resort, it needs to think more like a crafty entrepreneur than a drowsy bureaucrat." Here Dorman misses the point. Rather than trying to teach bureaucratic ducks to bark like entrepreneurial dogs*, why not just sell the thing to real entrepreneurs in the private market?

It might be hard to find willing buyers right now, however, since entrepreneurs tend to be more wise with their own money than the legislature is with ours.

*Not every metaphor I come up with can be a gem, people!

State Cuts 10%; Culver Fiddles

I couldn’t help but notice the irony in the title of O. Kay Henderson’s Radio Iowa report titled, “Agencies submit cuts; governor rides rails.” That sounds pretty similar to “Rome burns; Nero fiddles.”

I'm not saying that the current state budget cuts are as bad as Rome burning, of course. As far as I’m concerned they should cut the budget even more. But I do appreciate the irony in the fact that as current state services are being cut, Governor Culver is joyriding on a train, showing where he wants to dump even more taxpayer money to feed his railroad fetish.

Not wanting to prioritize, Culver made the 10% cut across-the-board. Cuts would include laying off 44 law enforcement officers (including 20 State Troopers, whose manpower was already at a 45 year low) and a fire inspector at the Dept. of Public Safety. The Quad City Times reports that the cuts will also have a “devastating impact” on the function of Iowa’s court system.

In terms of layoffs, the Department of Corrections will be the hardest hit with 515 jobs lost. "The impact will affect all departments in every level of service," said corrections officials. "A reduced workforce will create serious safety concerns for the public, staff and offenders within the maximum security facility. In line with the security concern is the closing of four towers."

Cops, courts and corrections sound like legitimate core functions of the state government to me. Should they really be cut at the exact same percentage as, say, the Department of Cultural Affairs or Iowa Public Television?

“The other neat thing we’re doing is we’ll be able to invest in the depots and modernize them,” Culver states in the Radio Iowa article. One such depot is the one in Osceola which is currently undergoing a $600,000 renovation. “And they’re bringing that historic place, you know, back to life,” said Culver.

Play your fiddle, Sir. Do you know "I’ve Been Working On the Railroad?"

Eliminate Iowa's Income Taxes

There seems to be a little more chatter about eliminating Iowa's state income tax these days. Ed Failor, Jr., President of Iowans for Tax Relief (ITR), for instance, had a guest column in the Cedar Rapids Gazette advocating such.

In the extended version of Failor's column on ITR's website, Failor cites a 2008 study by the Mt. Pleasant-based Public Interest Institute. The study found that South Dakota, which has no income taxes, outpaced neighboring Iowa in the growth of total personal income, per capita personal income, population, and non-farm employment from 1967-2007. Failor points out: "We all know people are not flocking to South Dakota for the warm climate. These jobs and former Iowans are leaving the Tall Corn State and moving just across our western border because there is no income tax in the Mount Rushmore State."

At least two Republican gubernatorial candidates have expressed support for eliminating Iowa's income tax. “That would be an ultimate goal, absolutely. Other states have done it and they have seen good growth," said state Senator and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Behn of Boone. I don't know whether or not Senator Behn actually worked to repeal the income tax while in the legislature.

Businessman, Corridor Recovery president and GOP candidate Christian Fong also supports getting rid of the state income tax. Fong says that his immigrant father put the issue into perspective for him. "He said, 'You don't need all that policy talk,'" Fong explained. "He said, 'High taxes are wrong because they inhibit personal freedom.' Done. For an immigrant from China who's bottom line is about the American Dream, taxation is really a freedom issue."

Whether or not the Republicans actually believe in any of the principles that they espouse while campaigning and whether they will follow through if elected remains to be seen. Either way, it's good to see that the idea of eliminating income taxes is at least part of the discourse.

Time To Wrap Iowa's Show Biz Giveaway

Just about everyone in Iowa knows that the Iowa Film Office (IFO) has been embroiled in scandal lately. The office issues tax credits to filmmakers who film in Iowa. By August, IFO had issued more than $31 million in such credits. Unfortunately, some filmmakers have used their money to buy themselves fancy cars, rather than hire Iowans, and the whole operation is shot through with accounting irregularities and poor record keeping.

The whole mess got so bad that Governor Culver actually had to put down his paddleball, amble over and fire somebody. Of course, Culver’s political rivals in the Republican Party are capitalizing on the scandal. They could run the IFO better, they contend. Other critics say that the IFO needs stricter oversight. But should IFO and other similar incentive programs exist at all?

There are nut-and-bolts reasons that indicate that they shouldn’t. A study by New Mexico State University found that for every dollar that N.M. spent on it’s film program, it got back 14 cents in tax revenue. (The state of N.M. claims it gets $1.50 back.) The Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce found that for every dollar that it invests in it’s film program, it gets back $1.70. For other economic development programs, the return on each dollar invested was said to be $161.

Victor Elias with the nonpartisan Child and Family Policy Center has studied Iowa’s film tax credit. He says that there is little evidence that the program does much of anything. “I couldn’t even figure out how many jobs this creates,” said Elias. “Whether they were full-time jobs or part-time jobs. And a film shoot only lasts for so long, so we’re not talking about permanent jobs.” $31 million is a lot of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to invest on hope alone.

Even if the incentive program was well-run and got a return on the investment, it (and special incentive programs for other industries) don’t really make sense. While it may now be customary for state and local governments to offer special goodies to get targeted businesses to relocate here, it comes at the expense of people and businesses who have already invested their time and money here.

According to Iowa’s Tax Education Foundation, Iowa has the highest corporate and personal income taxes among it’s neighboring states. Some have ranked Iowa as one of the worst states to start a business. Does it make sense to offer monetary incentives to get businesses to locate here, while simultaneously driving established businesses out?

It would make more sense to implement policies making the state attractive to new businesses and existing ones as well. Lowering state taxes and red tape would be conducive to all commerce in Iowa.

The bottom line is that there is no cash incentive that government can offer to new business that it didn’t first take away from the people and industry already here. The state needs to forget the bribes and just get out of the way.

Iowa Getting Railroaded?

My three-year-old boy loves his Thomas the Tank Engine train set. I think that all kids (or at least all the boys) go through "the train stage," but they grow out of it. Those who don't outgrow it go into politics.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver, for instance, has been riding around in his own special choo-choo to promote expanded passenger rail service in Iowa. (Republican blogger Krusy Konservative points out that Iowa Interstate Railroad [IAIS] is letting Culver use their train and Culver's I-Jobs program is funding two railroad bridges for IAIS. Quid pro quo?)

Perhaps Culver foresees a future for himself as Iowa's own Sir Topham Hatt [pictured], Thomas' railroad controller. (The resemblance is uncanny.) But unlike the railways on the fictional Isle of Sodor, Culver's railroad plans will cost Iowa taxpayers some very real cash.

Spurring the current interest in rail travel is some $8 billion in federal "stimulus" funds slated to go toward high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects. Governors, at one time proud leaders of sovereign states, are fighting each other to snap up these scraps of borrowed money from beneath the federal table.

The purpose of these funds, according to Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood, is "to coerce people out of their cars," presumably lowering demand for those cars. This at a time when American automakers are being propped up with taxpayer money because their failure would have supposedly catastrophic effects on the U.S. economy. Does Obama's left hand know what the right one is doing?

Another reason is the supposed environmental benefits of rail travel. For the money, however, other means of public transportation are better. Buses average 206.6 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel, while intercity rail (Amtrak) gets 67 passenger-miles per gallon. Buses put out 50 grams of CO2 per passenger-mile while intercity rail puts out 186 grams per passenger-mile. Buses also would not require costly upgrades to the road system.

But back to Culver. He recently signed an agreement with Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to coordinate efforts to create passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa City and Chicago to Dubuque. The necessary track improvements for the Iowa City route alone (not counting station construction) are estimated to cost Iowa about $32.5 million.

But this is an official estimate, which history shows is usually artificially low in order to garner public support for a project (and ridership estimates are usually inflated). Research by Public Interest Institute shows that urban passenger rail projects have averaged about 40% higher than the projected cost. That would put the price about $45.5 million.

It's unclear if the feds will give Iowa that much. Whatever wasn't paid with federal funds would probably be financed with state bonds (debt). There would be even more ongoing costs to Iowa taxpayers. The rail service would be run by that model of efficiency, Amtrak. On the East Coast (where Amtrak "works"), for instance, Amtrack's Boston to DC line LOSES $2.30 per passenger. Its Chicago to Detroit line loses $72 per passenger. States are expected to cover these loses in regional corridors.

The Iowa taxpayer would be adopting Amtrak and subsidizing its riders. According to Public Interest Institute, "the main patrons of high-speed trains will be the wealthy and downtown workers, such as bankers, lawyers, and government officials[...]." The working class will be paying for some affluent suburbanites to feel trendy and eco-friendly while spending their weekend in Chicago.

I have nothing against rail travel per se. If some smart entrepreneurs can figure out a way to provide affordable passenger rail service in Iowa, without hooking the taxpayer up to the milking-machine or putting my unborn grandchildren further in debt to the Chinese, I'd be all for it.

But in the mean time, if Governor Culver feels like joyriding on a train I suggest he head up to Boone Iowa, where he can ride on the Boone & Scenic Valley Railroad. A non-profit, this railroad is supported by voluntary contributions from Iowans, not taxation and public debt. And if he feels he absolutely must have his own railroad, for just a fraction of that $45.5 million I bet my son would sell him a Thomas & Friends Trackmaster set, slightly used.

Privatize Honey Creek Resort

We libertarians are sometimes criticized as having all these "big ideas" about limited government and personal freedom but lacking small, practical steps to implement them. Here's one idea that I think fits the bill: Privatize Iowa's Honey Creek Resort State Park.

Billed as Iowa's first "destination park," Honey Creek Resort opened for business last September. The luxury resort, located on Iowa's Rathun Lake, was built and is owned by the Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources. The resort boasts 105 spacious rooms in its "great lodge," 28 resort cabins, a pirate-themed indoor water park, an 18-hole golf course, 50-boat slips, boat launch, fishing pier, conference center, RV park, and a full-service restaurant and lounge. Whew!

The resort park has about 138 employees, making it one of Appanoose Countys largest employers, impacting the economy of southern Iowa. This is of course why the state government built the place, for the economic impact.

But what is this impact? Economist Henry Hazlitt teaches: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." We need to look beyond 138 employed persons in southern Iowa and any immediate tax revenues of the resort.

What is the resort's impact on other similar businesses in the area? A quick Google search identified 10 hotels, 4 golf courses, 3 RV parks and 4 private campgrounds near Moravia Iowa (where the resort was built). The state has created a tax-payer subsidized business to compete directly with them.

This impact stretches much further since the resort obviously hopes to draw tourists from all over the state as well as from out of state. A day a family stays at the resort is a day that they don't stay in a bed and breakfast in Dubuque or a day they don't spend shopping at Coral Ridge Mall or enjoying Arnold's Park or Adventureland Park, making those enterprises less profitable. The state has not "created" 138 jobs and a new revenue stream, it has merely borrowed them from private businesses throughout the state.

This is only the direct impact. More jobs and money will be sucked from elsewhere in the state via taxes. The state of Iowa has pumped atleast $8 million directly into the project. In 2008, Senator Chuck Grassley requested an additional $7.1 million in federal funds for projects around Rathbun Lake. In true government fashion, delays and cost overruns were frequent. Construction of the golf course alone went 150% over budget.

The project also racked up about $33 million in public revenue bonds to pay for construction. These will have to be paid back. Early projections from 2007 (before the economy tanked) showed that the resort should be showing a small profit by the third year of operation (2011). Since the resort will make the bond payments out of it's net income, every year that the resort doesn't break even the Iowa taxpayer will have to make the bond payments.

All this tax money is perhaps diverted from more needful government projects at a time when the state is having difficulty paying the bills. But the money was originally diverted from its rightful owners: the people of Iowa. Every dollar taken from us to fund frivolous projects is a dollar not spent or invested in our own communities to create jobs and build dreams.

So when we see the "massive mosaic fireplace" of Honey Creek's "great lodge," before we marvel at its grandeur, let us take Hazlitt's advice and use our mind's eye to see "the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. [Let us] see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the ungrown and unsold foodstuffs. [...] What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others."

Honey Creek Resort is already built. Iowa should sell it to private investors. Let them assume the debt and compete against Iowa's other businesses on equal footing, without the coercive and confiscatory power of government tipping the scales in the resort's favor.

"Iowa" Gun Ban Group Folds

According to a Radio Iowa report, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV), a group dedicated to incrementally banning gun-ownership in Iowa, has disbanded due to lack of funds. The article states that the group was founded in response to the 1991 shootings by deranged student Gang Lu on the campus of the University of Iowa (a gun-free zone, I might point out).

While IPGV might have started out as a grassroots campaign, it quickly turned into nothing more than a surrogate for the large anti-gun Joyce Foundation out of Chicago (on the board of which President Obama served at the time).

According to a 2005 article by lawyer/author David Hardy, the Joyce Foundation dumped $250,000 into IPGV in 2002 and again in 2004. After he checked IPGV's tax records (which are open to the public, since IPGV was a tax-exempt "charity"), Hardy concluded that "it would appear that the 'grassroots' group's entire contribution income and budget consists of the Joyce money." That's right, in that time period apparently not a single Iowan contributed a penny to this supposed group of "concerned" Iowans. IPGV has also received funds from the Joyce Foundation during other years and from Freedom States Alliance, which is also largely funded by the Joyce Foundation.

Poor fiscal management might have helped to hasten IPGV's fall. According to analysis at the LonelyMachines blog, in one particular year 67% of IPGV's funding was gobbled up paying themselves salaries while only 3% went toward the group's stated mission. No wonder that not too many Iowans opened their wallets up for these clowns and no wonder that the Joyce Foundation finally slapped IPGV off the teat.

I recall that after 9-11 gun control groups decided to target .50-caliber rifles for elimination. "It can shoot down airliners!" they warned in a tizzy. Well, you could theoretically bring down an airliner tossing a well-aimed bar of soap, but it would be a million-to-one shot. Anyway, IPGV jumped on the bandwagon as usual.

I read a news article in the "Cedar Rapids Gazette" where John Johnson, then Executive Director of IPGV, was trumpeting the supposed evils of these .50-cals. I looked online and quickly found who must have been handing Johnson his talking points: Tom Diaz from the anti-gun Violence Policy Center (which is largely funded by guess who... the Joyce Foundation). Johnson didn't just use these talking points as a starting point, he mindlessly parroted the words almost verbatim. A couple examples:

• Diaz: "It is indeed almost impossible to exaggerate the lethality of these weapons of war." Johnson: "It is almost impossible to exaggerate the lethality of the .50-caliber sniper rifle."
• Diaz: "Translate that into civilian terms and you have the perfect weapon for assassination and terrorism[.]" Johnson: "[B]ut in civilian terms, you have a perfect weapon for assassination and terrorism."

I shot off a letter to the "Gazette" pointing all this out and which I concluded, "It's easy to see who is controlling IPGV's agenda, and it's not the people of Iowa." In a stroke of good luck they published my letter three days before Johnson had one published in which he used those very talking points, hopefully eroding his credibility. It was fun for this David to sling a stone at a (then well-funded) Goliath.

In the end, however, IPGV probably wasn't brought down by the efforts of gun owners like myself so much as it was by it's own waste, greed and inefficiency. But like the mighty Soviet Empire, as long as it topples who cares why?

It should be noted that while IPGV couldn't find many actual Iowans to support their cause, pro-gun freedom groups like Iowa Carry (which relies primarily on dues and contributions from living, breathing Iowans) seem to be surviving and growing.

So on behalf of myself, Iowa's gun owners, and every other Iowan who wouldn't open their wallet to IPGV, let me say: "Good riddance!" I think I'll celebrate IPGV's demise with a trip to the shooting range.

This Land Is Your Land, But Now It's OUR Land

Eminent domain abuse in Iowa?

The fact that Iowa passed a law affording property owners additional protections, in response to the landmark Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, may be of little comfort to about two-dozen Iowa families who may soon be forced off their own land.

The high court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London was handed down June 23, 2005. In it's decision the court ruled that local governments could take land from one private property owner, just to give it to another, who may generate more tax revenue with the property. The court ruled that it was permissible under the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment.

That clause reads, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Before the Kelo decision, "public use" was generally understood to mean something open for the use of the general public, such as roads or schools. After Kelo, local governments could take private land from one owner (a farmer for instance) and give it to another (a real estate developer perhaps). The decision caused considerable public backlash across the country.

Here in Iowa, the Legislature responded by passing an anti-Kelo law in 2006 which tightened the state's laws protecting landowners. Then-governor Tom Vilsack vetoed the bill, but the Legislature overrode his veto by wide margins. (After sticking his thumb in the eye of Iowa's farmers and property owners on his way out of office, Vilsack now serves as Obama's Secretary of Agriculture.) Three years later, Iowa's eminent domain law may face it's first real test.

Recently the Clarke County Reservoir Commission voted to condemn farmland in order to build a new 900-acre reservoir north of Osceola. Osceola City Administrator Bill Kelly said that the area's current reservoir has about 7 percent capacity remaining. When that's completely tapped, it may hamper efforts to develop a new hotel and upscale subdivision that the town wants. The reservoir would also have a 300-foot beach, boat ramp and campsites, which supporters hope would help draw tourists to the area.

It sounds like a nice idea, but Clarke County has the same dilemma that Harvey Corman's character did in "Blazing Saddles" when he said, "Unfortunately there is one thing standing between me and that property: the rightful owners." About two-dozen rightful owners actually.

The landowners (many of whom live on the soon-to-be-submerged land) and their friends don't plan on going down without a fight. Opponents of the lake allege that supporters have exaggerated the area's water needs. Either way, the project puts the needs of future development over the welfare of current tax-paying property owners.

Representative Jodi Tymeson, a Winterset Republican and reservoir opponent, points out that many members of the Clarke County Reservoir Commission are unelected representatives of local developers and a local water association, who stand to gain from the project. "Iowans understand eminent domain for real public uses, but private property ownership is just basic to our individual liberties," said Tymeson.

The project sidesteps Iowa's anti-Kelo law since it does not take land and give it directly to private developers. Instead it takes the land and uses it for the direct benefit of those developers, at the expense of the rightful owners. "This is a deliberate attempt to get around our law,” said Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, who helped pass the 2006 law.

The county government has deeper pockets than the rural residents that it seeks to dispossess, leaving Kaufmann hoping that an attorney might provide pro bono legal services for the group. If this lake project proceeds, opponents fear that it may encourage the use of eminent domain for other development and recreation projects. “I’m not sure anyone in Iowa is safe,” Representative Tymeson said.

This project may not be as an egregious case of eminent domain abuse as that which is now enshrined by the Kelo decision, but that doesn't mean it's fair.

On The Road To Des Moines

While of course Memorial Day is a somber occasion, its weekend is the traditional kickoff of summer. My family and I were able to already have a nice mini summer vacation without lining the pockets of the foreign potentates of Wisconsin or Minnesota. We spent two days in Des Moines, right here in good old Iowa. That was plenty far to drive with a three-year-old and a pregnant wife anyway.

On Thursday we left Northeast Iowa early and headed for Adventureland Amusement Park, in the Des Moines suburb of Altoona. Adventureland came into being in 1974 (the same year I did) and is Iowa's most complete amusement park and resort.

I've been going to Adventureland since I was a child. My parents would take us down at least once per summer. They were stockholders in the place, so they got tickets at a deep discount. (To put that into perspective for us kids who didn't understand stocks, when we asked about it, Dad would point at one of the painted lines in the parking lot and say, "We own that line.") Since I have so many summers worth of memories there, it felt good to see my little boy on some of the same toddler rides that I rode on, as well as quite a few that they didn't have back then.

Outside the park we ate a nice picnic lunch that my wife had packed, to save a little money on park food. We didn't get a chance to go on any "big kid" rides this time. That was fine with me because just going on the "Tea Cups" with my boy made me a little green around the gills.

Although Adventureland remains almost frozen in time from when I was a kid, nothing can shield it from Iowa's shifting demographics. When I was a kid, it was mostly teenagers running the rides, today it is mostly "seasoned citizens" running them. I guess I'm getting old enough that I kind of prefer them. In another cultural shift, the sound of Spanish language from park guests filled the air.

That night we stayed at Adventureland Inn, located right next door. My son loved its three large indoor pools, my wife enjoyed relaxing and I appreciated Iowa's only swim-up bar.

The next day we headed for Blank Park Zoo, which bills itself as "Iowa's WILDEST Adventure." While there are a few "animal displays" in Iowa (Osborne Park in Clayton County, Bever Park in Cedar Rapids and Fontana Park in Buchanan County being the best examples in my neck of the woods) there are none that truly qualify as a "zoo." Blank Park Zoo, however, certainly qualifies as a true zoo.

Blank Park Zoo boasts lions, tigers, giraffes, kangaroos, alligators, monkeys and many, many more. My boy especially enjoyed the camel ride as well as riding the zoo train which gives visitors a tour of the zoo. With the picnic food gone, we spent more at the zoo than we did at Adventureland, but it was well worth it.

On the way home we stopped at the Tanger Outlet Mall in Williamsburg. My wife bought some new baby clothes while my son and I tried to make ourselves scarce. Then it was one last meal at McDonald's and we were home.

It was a great two days in Iowa. The weather was perfect and we all had a great time.

I hope my kids will look back wistfully on memories like these someday, like I do with mine. Maybe someday they'll be taking their own children too.

Gay Marriage Comes To Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court made its long-awaited ruling on the case of Varnum v. Brien on Friday, allowing gay marriage in Iowa. The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of six same-sex couples who argued that the state’s ban on gay marriage violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The ruling makes Iowa only the third state (after Massachusetts and Connecticut) to allow equal gay marriage.

IowaPolitics.com reports that State Senator Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, an openly gay legislator, had this to say about the ruling: "Today is a red-letter day for the state of Iowa. All of Iowa’s citizens now have equal protection under the law. Thousands of Iowans who have worked hard, raised families, and paid taxes will now be afforded the opportunity to marry. As a lifelong Iowan, I know that fair-minded people throughout our state support equality for all. I have never been more proud of all the Iowans who have worked continuously for the advancement of human rights for all."

Many Republicans were disappointed by the ruling. GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats of Sioux City summed up their thoughts: "The Defense of Marriage Act had strong bipartisan support when it was introduced and debated in our legislature. That bipartisan support for traditional marriage between one man and one woman reflected the will of the people then – and reflects the will of the people now. On an issue of this monumental importance to the very foundation of our society, I believe a vote of the people is necessary. I hope the General Assembly will take the required steps to give Iowans a voice is this process on the most basic of issues – and that Governor Culver will take a leadership role to let all Iowans express their opinion.”

There were calls from conservative leaders to amend Iowa’s constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. An amendment seems unlikely in the near term, as such a measure would have to be passed by two consecutive sessions of the Iowa General Assembly, then by a vote of the people. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said Thursday that it was “exceedingly unlikely” that the current session would pass legislation regarding gay marriage. A “Hail Mary pass” possibly available to conservatives in 2010 is that the question of whether to hold a state constitutional convention will be placed before Iowa voters, as it is every 10 years.

While I support the Iowa court’s recent decision, I don’t think that it is the quantum leap forward in individual liberty that gay rights advocates make it out to be. It is an advancement in equality under the law (certainly a worthy goal), but not in individual liberty overall. The gay rights advocates are not challenging the authority of omnipotent government, they're merely seeking its blessing.

As I explained in “Gay Marriage In Iowa” (11-28-08) and Beth Cody pointed out more recently, the real debate should be whether the state should be in the marriage business at all. Even with the recent ruling, supposedly free people (gay and straight alike) must ask for the state’s permission to marry the person of their choosing. So long as that remains the case, a larger issue of freedom remains.

When Good Bills Go Bad

HF 193's fall from grace and it's hoped redemption.

German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck said, “There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation.” Watching the political tug-of-war going on in the Iowa legislature right now over Iowa’s concealed carry permit system, I can see what he meant. Sausage-making usually renders a usable product, however, while legislating might not.
Such is the fate of House File 193, a bill partially reforming Iowa’s weapons permit process. About two weeks ago I included HF193 in my “Funnel Week” report as one of the “good bills” to have survived. How quickly things change.
I reported at that time: “HF 193 would improve the licensing regime in several ways. First, if a sheriff denies a permit he has to give the applicant a written reason why it was denied. Secondly, a denial can be appealed to the Iowa commissioner of public safety (and then to a judge, if needed). Thirdly, it would standardize training requirements statewide. Fourthly, it would grant reciprocity, recognizing weapons permits from other states. Lastly, it would grant immunity to the issuing sheriff or commissioner of public safety for any unlikely harm done by a permit holder.”
That was how the bill read as it was originally introduced by pro-Second Amendment legislator Clel Baudler. However, it emerged from the Iowa House’s Public Safety Committee “sausage factory” much different than it went in. It even came out sporting a new name: HF 746.
HF 746 still leaves discretion on issuing permits to the county sheriff, meaning Iowa will retain its 99 different policies on issuance requirements. It would keep the appeals process from HF 193, but permit denials would be upheld so long as they were “uniformly applied to all nonprofessional permits issued pursuant to standards published by the sheriff[.]”
In other words, all that Iowa’s many anti-Second Amendment sheriffs would have to do is post a list of their “standards” for issuing permits, perhaps requiring applicants be blue-eyed Eskimo amputees who are native-speakers of Portuguese. (It doesn’t say how these standards would be disseminated. Presumably, an 8.5” X 11” photocopy hung in the sheriff’s personal restroom would suffice.) So long as these standards were “uniformly applied” to all applicants, the sheriff doesn’t even need to give you a written reason for the denial and the appeals process would be meaningless.
The new bill was so bad that Gun Owners of America (GOA) said it would consider a legislator’s vote for HF 746 as an “anti-gun” vote. According to GOA, the bill would also:

• Permanently ban you from getting a permit if you have been convicted of a simple misdemeanor assault or harassment charge (charges that can include such things as "pushing and shoving" cases);
• Raise the permit age from 18 to 21;
• Remove some of the confidentiality restrictions on psychiatric records(which means that military veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder could be unduly affected by [HF 746]);
• Require that an abused spouse attempting to get a permit to protect herself from her abusing husband pass a marksmanship test;
• Specify that the Lautenberg amendment be strictly enforced, even though strict enforcement of the Lautenberg amendment in other jurisdictions has interpreted its language to reach parents who spank their kids, wives who spit at their husbands, and even spouses who inflict "emotional abuse."

Since anti-Second Amendment legislators trashed Baudler’s original bill, a few pro-Second Amendment legislators decided to try to return the favor. Representative Kent Sorenson (who had earlier seen his “Vermont Carry” bill go down in flames) and several others, introduced three new amendments to HF 746.
Again according to GOA, these amendments (labeled H 1184, H 1185, and H 1186) would “reaffirm[…] your right to carry a firearm without the gracious permission of the government” (Sorenson’s Vermont Carry), and include "‘Castle doctrine’ language which would allow you to defend yourself, your family, and others without retreating,” and “[l]anguage to move Iowa toward a 'shall issue' state in which your concealed carry permit could not be withheld for arbitrary reasons[.]”
The pro-Second Amendment group Iowa Carry reports that Speaker of the House Pat Murphy has stated that he will not allow HF 746 to come to a vote on the house floor with these amendments attached. Iowa Carry encourages concerned gun owners to contact Representative Murphy and tell him to allow a vote on HF 746 WITH the amendments H 1184, H 1185, and H 1186. (Remember, without the amendments this is a bad, bad bill. With the amendments, it's okay.)
That's where concealed carry reform in Iowa stands at the moment.

Funnel Week

During each legislative session of the Iowa General Assembly there are what are as known as “funnel weeks” where, if a bill has not been atleast passed out of committee, it is dead for that year. (They may still resurface latter as amendments to other bills, however.) This does not apply to certain spending bills, tax bills and leadership bills. The week of March 9-13 was the sessions first funnel week.

Of the many Iowa bills discussed on this blog, the following ones, good and bad, are still alive:

Bad Bill- House File 179, “An Act including members of the clergy as mandatory reporters of child abuse, and making penalties applicable.” This bill flies in the face of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. It would require State determination of who is and who is not "clergy." Also (as I pointed out in "How About A Little Separation of Church And State?") this would discourage people from going and talking to their minister, who is "a small town’s first responder for family crises."

Bad Bill- Senate File 227, "An Act relating to an agreement among the states to elect the president by national popular vote." Formerly called SSB 1128, this bill would require all of Iowa's electoral votes be awarded to whichever presidential candidate wins the most votes nationwide, regardless of how they fared in Iowa. In "Iowa Senate Studies 'Tyranny of the Majority'" I stated that a candidate therefore could "win" Iowa without having a single person in Iowa vote for them.

Good Bill- House File 74, the “Iowa Taxpayer Transparency Act of 2009.” This bill would require the state to create a “searchable budget database website for the public to access the details of the expenditure of state tax revenues and a searchable tax rate database for the public to access the details of each tax rate for all taxing districts in the state.” [Referenced in "3 Good Bills In Des Moines"]

Good Bill- House File 721, "An Act relating to the carrying of a gun in or on a vehicle on a public highway and making penalties applicable." Called HF 116 when I wrote about it in "3 Good Bills In Des Moines," this bill would alter the silly Iowa law that considers a loaded magazine to be a loaded weapon even if it isn't in a weapon. This was a pain in the neck for shooters who had to spend valuable range time loading and unloading their magazines. If they forgot to unload one, they could become criminals on the drive home.

Good Bill- House File 193, "An Act relating to the issuance of permits to carry weapons and providing an effective date." Although I didn't actually endorse HF 193 in "'Shall Issue' In Iowa?," I did mention it. In the eyes of libertarian purists, it certainly wasn't the best of the five bills to reform Iowa's concealed weapons permit system, but it's the last man standing, and it is pretty good.

HF 193 would improve the licensing regime in several ways. First, if a sheriff denies a permit he has to give the applicant a written reason why it was denied. Secondly, a denial can be appealed to the Iowa commissioner of public safety (and then to a judge, if needed). Thirdly, it would standardize training requirements statewide. Fourthly, it would grant reciprocity, recognizing weapons permits from other states. Lastly, it would grant immunity to the issuing sheriff or commissioner of public safety for any unlikely harm done by a permit holder.

There are still plenty of other bad bills and probably even a few good ones that made it through the funnel. Since tax and spending bills aren't affected by funnels, don't let go of your wallet just yet.

"Shall Issue" In Iowa?

While the National Rifle Association dozes quietly on the sidelines (no doubt dreaming of new fundraising appeals), five separate “shall issue” concealed weapons bills have been introduced in the Iowa General Assembly. This fact alone shows that there is growing support for fixing Iowa’s concealed carry law.

Concealed carry laws simply allow that citizens who have passed criminal background checks and firearms training courses can be issued a permit to carry a firearm concealed on their person. Thirty-six states have “shall issue” laws which declare that the issuing authority must issue a permit to qualified applicants. Iowa currently has what is called a “may issue” law. The decision whether or not to issue permits to qualified applicants (or at all) is left to each individual county sheriff. This means that there are 99 separate policies setting standards for proper training and issuance of permits in Iowa, although the permits themselves are valid statewide. [The Iowa map to the upper right shows the relative ease of getting a permit by county, with green being the easiest, yellow medium, and red the hardest. Map courtesy of IowaCarry.org ]
Why would Iowa, or any state, want private individuals to be able to carry guns? Concealed carry laws are partially responsible for the massive declines in crime rates that we’ve seen in America. States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%. Since 1991, 23 states have adopted some form of concealed carry law, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by almost 70 million, while violent crime has declined 38%. Every year, about 500,000 people defend themselves with a firearm while away from their home. [U.S. map to the left from NRA-ILA.]

Of the five bills introduced in the Iowa legislature, three do not fix all the problems of the current system. Some appear to be “shall issue” measures, but leave out important elements such as an appeals process or standardized statewide training requirements. Leaving training standards to local sheriffs allows anti-gun sheriffs to obstruct issuing permits by making the standards impossible to meet. The two best bills are HF 559 and HF 596.

HF 559 is the bill being championed by the pro-gun group Iowa Carry. This bill meets the four requirements that Iowa Carry has fought for: It states that the sheriff “shall issue” to qualified applicants, it standardizes training statewide, it allows for “reciprocity” (recognizing permits from other states), and although it allows sheriffs to deny permits for specified reasons, it allows for an appeals process for applicants who feel they were wrongly denied.

This bill is currently stuck in a three-man subcommittee, the chair of which has a reputation as being the ax man for bills that the Democrat majority wants to disappear. When asked about HF 559, another member of the subcommittee states that he is “[not] in favor of a bunch of idiots running around shooting each other." The last representative on the committee, Clel Baudler, while a stalwart supporter of the Second Amendment, is the author of one of the other concealed carry bills (HF 193) and therefore might not go to the mat for this one.

HF 596 is a much more sweeping reform of Iowa‘s permit system (and therefore much less likely to pass). According to Gun Owners of America, which supports it, the bill would: Allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms concealed or openly on their hip, without a permit. This is often called “Vermont Carry” after one of the two states that use this policy. (The other, more recent, one is Alaska.) It would allow people to be issued a permit, if they wished to carry in other states that recognize such. Moving beyond right-to-carry issues, this bill would eliminate Iowa’s requirement to get a special permit just to purchase a handgun. This requirement is redundant now that a federal law mandates that all commercial gun sales require a criminal background check.

Although it is good, HF 596 has only slightly better odds of passage than a resolution declaring that hog farmers and the Iowa Hawkeyes suck.

Of the five bills, only Baudler’s HF 193 (SF 258 in the Senate) seems to be going anywhere. This bill is a definite improvement as it would standardize training requirements statewide, grant reciprocity to other states and would establish an appeals process for denied applicants. However, it can’t be considered a true “shall issue” bill since it would still leave issuance criteria solely to the county sheriff.

With five bills floating around the statehouse, there’s a chance that at least one can pass and maybe modestly improve Iowa’s confused weapons permit system. Then again, maybe not.

Time To Tax Our Taxes?

According to the Sioux City Journal, Governor Culver said Tuesday that he “would give ‘serious’ consideration to eliminating federal deductibility as a way to simplify and streamline Iowa's tax code.” This came just the week after Iowa Senate Democrat leaders announced their support for eliminating federal deductibility. Obviously there is growing support in Des Moines for this idea. What does that mean for Iowa taxpayers?

Federal deductibility simply means that, when figuring your state income taxes, you may deduct from your income the money that you’ve already paid in federal income taxes. For most of us, these federal taxes are withheld from our checks. It is money that we never get to see, touch, deposit or spend, so why on earth should it be counted as income?

For many low and middle-income taxpayers who don’t have mortgage interest or property taxes to deduct from their income, federal deductibility represents a significant savings on their state tax bill.

Federal deductibility is a matter of fairness. To eliminate it would mean allowing the state to charge a tax upon a tax.

Proponents of changing the deduction say that it would simplify the tax code. But one already-existing line on the tax form seems to be a worthwhile complexity to assure fairness. If they really wanted to simplify the tax code, they could eliminate the personal income tax altogether like Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming have already done. Or they could move to a flat rate personal income tax such as Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah have.

Proponents also claim that the deduction forces the state to charge higher taxes in order to compensate for its lost income from federal deductibility. This argument could also be made against any other state deduction. The watchdog group Iowans for Tax Relief is fond of pointing out that, when “simplifying” the tax code, any promised tax cuts are short-lived while the lost deductions are usually gone for good.

While the idea of eliminating federal deductibility might be popular with those who charge taxes, it is unpopular with the Iowans who pay the taxes. A January 2009 poll showed that 72.5% of Iowans support maintaining their right to deduct federal tax payments.

If you are a member of this majority of Iowans, you can look up your state legislators here and ask them to retain federal deductibility on state income taxes.

Further reading: Public Interest Institute Policy Study No. 07-3 "Federal Tax Deductibility in Iowa: Who Benefits and Why It Should Continue"

Iowa Senate Studies "Tyranny of the Majority"

When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787 there was almost immediate conflict between delegates from the large, heavily populated states and the smaller, less populous ones.

How should the national legislature be constituted? The big states proposed The Virginia Plan which assigned Congressional representation based upon population. The smaller states favored The New Jersey Plan, which assigned an equal number of representatives to each state. Ultimately, both sides accepted the “Connecticut Compromise,” wherein there would be two houses of Congress. In the Senate, each state would get an equal number of Senators and the House of Representatives would be allocated by a state’s population.

Another (somewhat cobbled together) compromise was the “Electoral College” for electing the president. Some delegates thought the president should be elected by Congress, others preferred a popular election. In the end, the Constitution allowed each state to assign a number of “electors” equal to that state’s Congressional delegation, to vote for the president.

Most people don’t really understand the electoral college (myself included). As it is now practiced, each state still gets one elector for each representative and Senator it has in Congress. All but two states instruct their electors to vote for whichever presidential candidate got the most votes in that state. These 48 states, Iowa included, are “winner-take-all,” giving all of their elector votes to the highest vote getter in that state.

It seems unduly complicated and a lot of people don’t like it. That may be why the Iowa State Senate is currently studying a bill that would alter Iowa’s participation in the electoral college.

Pushed by a national group called “National Popular Vote,” Senate Study Bill 1128 would change the instructions that Iowa would give to it’s electors. They would be instructed to vote for whichever candidate got the most votes NATION-WIDE. The new law would be an interstate compact, an agreement, with other states who pledge to do the same thing. It would go into effect as soon as enough states to collectively field 270 electoral votes have signed into the agreement. So far only Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii have signed into the pact.

Critics charge that such a system would create an “urban-centric” presidency. Candidates would focus their time and energy on areas where they could rack up the most popular votes quickly, places such as New York and California, rather than having to focus on winning in various sectors of the country. Once elected, the President would tailor all policies toward appeasing these areas, often at the expense of less populated states.

“National Popular Vote” (NPV) responds to allegations that their plan is an “end run” around the Constitution by correctly pointing out that the Constitution allows states to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct[.]” NPV might want to read the rest of the Constitution, however, particularly Article One, Section 10, Clause 3 which says, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress […] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power[.]”

Let’s look at NPV’s plan using Iowa as our model. Iowa has 7 electoral votes, one for each of our five Congressional districts and two Senators. Suppose Candidate A gets 60% of the popular vote here in Iowa. However, Candidate B sweeps LA, New York, Chicago, etc… and gets 51% of the popular vote nation-wide. All of Iowa’s electoral votes would go to Candidate B, who voters in Iowa soundly rejected. If we take this example to the extreme, it would be possible for all 7 of Iowa’s electoral votes to go to a candidate who did not get a single person in Iowa to vote for him.

It’s easy to see how less populous states like Iowa would quickly become mere spectators of presidential elections, allowing other, more populated states to vote FOR us. No thank you. If the electoral college needs reformed, perhaps, like our forefathers in 1787, we can find a mutually-equitable compromise.

I think a better plan would be to adopt the “Congressional District Method” currently used by Maine and Nebraska. Rather than award all of the state’s electors to one candidate, an electoral vote is given to the popular winner in each Congressional district. The two remaining electoral votes, representing the state’s two Senators, are given to whichever candidate had the most votes statewide.

It is a “winner-takes-most” system, rather than the current “winner-takes-all” system. This would ensure that voters in a conservative district of liberal California, for instance, would not be wasting their votes. Nor voters in a liberal district of conservative Texas. In 2008, John McCain carried conservative Nebraska, but Barack Obama still got one electoral vote from the state for winning in it’s 2nd Congressional District.

The “Maine-Nebraska Method” would be more democratic than the current system without completely relegating rural states to political irrelevance. Also, since it would be implemented individually by respective states, it would not run afoul of the Constitution’s “Compact Clause,” mentioned above. Perhaps history books will call the adoption of this plan “The Iowa Compromise.”