In Flyover Country

This will make you cringe...

Striker — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:43:00 GMT

Today's Financial Times has a very interesting write-up concerning the budget hole we're in.

Essentially, we're unable to fill it without a dramatic rise in taxes (which in turn slows down economic vitality, etc... - you know the rest.)

This is the part that made us want to throw up:

Mr Obama intends to squeeze the rich, but the scope for this may be more limited than US liberals would wish. Few Americans seem aware that the US income tax code, as a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study showed, is already one of the most progressive.* Even before the rise in top marginal rates promised by Mr Obama, the US income tax collects 45 per cent of its revenues from the highest-income decile. Compare that with Britain at 39 per cent, Canada at 36 per cent, France at 28 per cent, Sweden at 27 per cent and an OECD average of 32 per cent.

...The US tax system raises comparatively little revenue; what little it raises already comes disproportionately, by international standards, from the rich.

The good news? We are still taxed comparatively little as a nation. The bad news? We soak the rich more than socialized nations - and it's just going to keep getting worse! Obama has already promised to raise taxes on the wealthiest even more.

Where does that leave us?

We'll never understand where it will end. What is a "fair share" of taxes for liberals where the rich are concerned? When is enough, enough? Their insatiable thirst for power is never quenched. This is where conservatives have it exactly right. We are not "for the rich." Instead, we come out for freedom, for individuals to escape the oppressive thumb of the government.

And what does Congressman Barney Frank want to do? Cap ALL executive pay at $500,000. Then where will you get your coveted tax dollars?

To top it off, our state then wants to raise taxes through eliminating Federal Deductibility. News flash - at a time when New Yorkers and other Northeasterners are leaving by the droves because of high taxes, perhaps we should welcome them with open arms?

Nah, we'll just kick them out of a public hearing instead.

The Media of Inevitability

Striker — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:23:00 GMT

Well folks, the truly inevitable has happened. The media are defending ridiculous pork ideas.

The lastest is Todd Dorman, who chides Republicans for coming out against a 12-story "Tower of Invincibility" in Vedic City. This is a part of Culver's new I-Jobs plan. Dorman thinks Republicans should be ashamed of themselves and lay off this plan. He says that when we drive by this tower, we'll continue on to the Anamosa school district, where they will have a new middle school equipped with handicaped-accessible entrances.

My, how could we be SO shallow? And here we thought the massive tax increase known as the Local Option Sales Tax was to take care of school infrastructure needs. How could we be so misguided? Coulda fooled us.

We don't even care about the fact that it's technically a religious symbol. God forbid we chastise anyone other than Christians.

Imagine if we wanted a12-story "Cross of Invincibility," or a 12-story "Baptismal Water Fountain of Invincibility." Think that would fly? Heck no. Nor are we advocating for Christian symbols to be paid for with a $750 million line of credit that Culver's proposed.

What bleeding hearts don't get is that the end doesn't always justify the means. Just because a school (that should have used their local option funds) builds a new ramp doesn't mean I want to drive by a ridiculous-looking tower on the way to see it.

Really - this is how you justify the tower? That would be like feeding your kids a cupcake, skittles, ice cream, chocolate milk and a bagful of M&M's - but saying it's OK because once they're done with that, they'll eat a vegetable.

Government debt, in these turbulent times, is abysmally stupid. Let's instead focus on sound budget techniques, and start with cutting some of the billion dollars in new spending put forth by this governor and Legislature in the past two years...which, coincidentally, is just about the size of our current shortfall.

One Way Or Another

Captain Oveur — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:04:00 GMT

I guess when the unions set out to take more of our hard-earned money – whether through forced dues, prevailing wage, revamping collective bargaining, or more – they really mean it.

No, I mean, they REALLY mean it. When they aren't having their way picking our pockets through legislative fiat, they are LITERALLY picking our pockets. It's sad that a leader in the labor movement in Iowa, who is important enough to have wrangled an invitation to sit with VP nominee Biden at the DNC in Denver, can't keep his hands out of the purses of Iowans.

We always thought that some of the union leaders were a little less than smart. But to do it RIGHT IN THE IOWA CAPITOL? It's just too good not to post about.

Iowa Gets A Break - Collins to the RNC

Captain Oveur — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:17:00 GMT

As has been reported around the blogosphere today, Gentry Collins was tapped today to serve as the RNC Political Director. A few months ago, Krusty had posted a rumor that Collins was heading out to California to work with Meg Whitman's campaign. He's been rumored for other posts as well, but today it became official.

This is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it's always good when an Iowa operative gets a big role in national politics. We want our local folks to succeed.

However, the best news for Iowa is that there will be someone inside the RNC at a high level who can keep an eye on the Iowa Caucuses and our first-in-the-nation status. The job of Political Director doesn't set policy like that, it is handled by the RNC members and the rules committee specifically, but having a pair of eyes in DC watching what is happening will bode well for the Caucuses.

Whether you've been on the same team with Gentry or on another team working against him in a primary, most people we talk to think he's a straight shooter and a smart, organized operative. Given the troubles the RNC has had over the past month or two, Gentry is a good addition. His discipline and judgment will help put the organization back on the road to success.

Clean comments only, please, we should be respectful when one of Iowa's own gets a shot at a key job in DC.

Am I Outraged? No, I'm Not.

McCroskey — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:33:00 GMT

Since the simple, feeble-minded people who are outraged over the AIG bonuses choose to take a shallow, narrow-sighted, class warfare argument, we are going to take the same, simple approach to our argument: We are not outraged over the AIG bonuses.

If you'll remember, we channeled our outrage over the actual bailout bill itself.

For the president and legislators to now come back and say they're so upset...it's just political theater and a CYA approach.

First, these workers earned their bonuses. Now legislators want to punish them? How fair is that? These workers did nothing wrong. Legislators saw the contracts over a year ago, yet still voted for the bailout.

This is what happens when you don't read the g-damn bill you vote for.

Second, they have legally-binding contracts with these people. If you think it's expensive now, trying paying all those legal fees that will come as a result.

Third, we're talking about trillions and trillions of bailouts, and they're concerned over a few million bucks?

Trying to make AIG's hard working employees the poster child through a 100 percent tax, as Harkin has proposed, isn't right and it isn't fair.

This is what happens when government gets involved in private enterprise.

What's done is done. Just move on. Because if you legislators lose next November, it ain't because of a few bonuses a year and a half earlier. It's because you haven't done your homework, haven't read the bills, voted for them, then acted outraged.

People are fed up, and see through your bull-sh*t.

Brand new video of Vander Plaats' Iowa Press Appearance!

McCroskey — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:14:00 GMT

See above. That's where we have embedded the brand new video of Bob Vander Plaats' Iowa Press appearance this weekend. In the first 10 seconds, you can see an empty suit. At about minute 14, you'll see as he says nothing. Oh! Watch for that zinger 20 minutes in. Plus, if you watch the entire thing, you'll see every single piece of major policy he rolled out.

Pretty entertaining video, isn't it? What - you say there is no video there? You don't see a candidate, policy proposals, a zinger or anything of substance?

Well, if you want that, you're going to have to make it up. Because there wasn't any.

Look, until now we had no problem with Bob. We have been closely following Krusty's critiques. A lot of people think he's hard on Vander Plaats and until now, we've largely held our tongue. Hell, we even tried to help Bob out by eagerly anticipating his response to the Senate Majority Leader's challenge to him. But he said nothing! He let us down! You can NOT be the standard-bearer of our party's message if you won't even take advantage of Gronstal's calling you out. He legitimized you, for crying out loud. That's something you've had yet to do for yourself.

For the love of Pete, this guy has nothing. It is truly unbelievable, un-nerving and downright painful to listen to him in his interview! Oh, and by this time, you should probably know Mike Glover's name.

Folks, we have got to find someone to run for Governor. We don't know if that passenger is on our flight, or has yet to board, but there has got to be somebody.

Let's put it this way - Culver's approval numbers are tanking, yet Iowa fails to garner even a mention in the Washington Post's top 10 Governor's races to watch in the country. That's pathetic - did we mention Bob has run statewide three times (primary, primary, general)?! And not even a mention.

We are either going to get serious about this race by nominating someone other than Bob, or we are going to lose. It's up to you, Iowa Republicans.

Great new documentary on the United Nations

Striker — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:22:00 GMT

"Corporations move to low-tax Switzerland; Escape Obama's tax-seeking administration"

McCroskey — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:59:00 GMT

Be honest. When you saw the above headline describing this story, you had strong feelings one way or another.

1. "Those damn, dirty corporations are nothing but greed factories. They won't pay their fair share, and leaving the country is unpatriotic."

2. "See, the government sets high-tax policies and doesn't take into account the consequences and this is what happens!"

If you answered in the former, you are a liberal. If the latter, welcome to the conservative side.

Look, nobody is arguing that corporations should duck their taxes, nor that they should pay nothing. They use the roads, infrastructure, police, fire and other vital services that the government provides. They most certainly should contribute something to the cause. However, constantly placing undue excess taxes on a company is the worst form possible of governmental policy.

Let's explain.

Companies employ Americans who pay their own taxes. Without a job, Americans wouldn't pay taxes and would instead be taking tax-funded benefits supplied by the government.

The more Americans out of a job, the less taxes coming into the Treasury.

The more Americans out of a job, the more taxpayer-funded benefits coming out of the Treasury.

It's just that simple. And history has proven this time and time again. When Reagan cut taxes, what happened? Money to the treasury actually increased.

Why? How?

Because when individuals have less taxes on their production, they will be freed up to contribute more to society in the private sector. They create things that create wealth. Hell, Kennedy understood this and cut the top tax rates in his day too.

Why do Democrats ignore history?

Plain and simple: It's about power. Democrats believe in that our fundamental rights come from and are set by the government. The laws of the land exist solely to "level the playing" field between classes (read also: the producers and the leeches.) If the government is stripped of their power, then Democrats have no basis of control over the American people. This is why every single thing you touch, see, hear - even breathe, soon - is taxed. And regulated. And has oversight. And a federal bureaucracy that ensures compliance over everything. Everything.

How is that freedom?

Let's hope more of these companies move overseas so that the Democrats can have a wake-up call.

I'm confused

Striker — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:51:00 GMT

'If people aren't clear, they're going to be confused.'

That's a recent quote from the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet. To whom was he reffering? To his choice for President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Buffet said the quote in response to how the President is handling the economy. He, along with corporate legend Jack Welch, rightly notes that when the President yesterday talks about stem cells, today gives an address on education and later this week addresses health care...can you name what's missing?

THE ECONOMY!

I know all these feel-good weepy types will tell you that they're all intertwined, but they aren't. Even Jim Cramer and others who fiercely defended him on the campaign trail don't know what to make of this.

Even this weekend, he attended a celebrity gala at the Kennedy Center in honor of Senator Ted Kennedy. All dressed up, hob-knobbing with celebreties...just two days after the latest job report said we shed 650,000 jobs last month alone.

Talk about mixed signals! We know little Barack Obama didn't have the big boy pants he needed for this job, but wow, he's shocking even us with his complete aloofness and ineptitude.

Rush Limbaugh didn't want him to fail. If Rush had wanted him to fail, he'd have told the President to do exactly what he's doing now. If anything, Limbaugh did him a favor.

An Open Letter to Democrats

McCroskey — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:59:00 GMT

Dear Democrat Friends,

We haven't always agreed on, well, almost anything. We've had spirited, idealogical debates that have led to sparring and some good revelations. But today, we're asking for your help.

Too often, both parties are portrayed as either tax and spend (Democrats) or cut all taxes and let everyone fend for themselves (Republicans.) That's why we were encouraged today to see that the White House would be softening a bit on its tax increases. We're also encouraged that moderate and conservative Democrats are balking at the enormous spending in the stimulus bill.

Yes, we'll be the first to admit that we as Republicans have our own share of wound licking to do. But, if we were going to be truly partisan about this, we'd say go ahead and spend to your heart's content, knowing that the American people couldn't stomach it, throwing money at things like ACORN and STD prevention wouldn't stimulate the economy, and you Democrats would lose two years and four years from now.

But this isn't partisan, because by modifying your tax and spending increases, you're putting yourselves on a pathway toward success.

Remember, your party has become more moderate because you've had conservative Democrats campaigning on Republican issues. If you'd just carry through with our issues, you'd see how successful you can be.

There is a reason Michael Bloomberg won't raise taxes on his richest residents. Did you know that in New York City, population 8,000,000, that just 40,000 people pay over half the taxes? Isn't it time for some reform? He knows that if he raises their rates, they will move out of the city.

We all need to do our part.

it's up to you now, Democrats. Will you contact your Democrat lawmaker and tell them to stop spending so much, and to not dramatically hike taxes during a recession? Republicans can hem and haw all we want, but it's going to take YOU, whom they listen to, in order to make this happen.

We need fiscal accountability. Hold your fellow Democrats to the fire. Hopefully they'll listen to you. Our Republican leaders never listened to us.

Good Luck.

Sincerely,

Your Captains

Mess with the Lim-bull, you'll get the horns

Striker — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:33:00 GMT

The recent flap between Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh brings us to three things that are forever certain:

1. Of course the media fabricates stories against conservatives. So what's new? That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2. If you are a conservative, never, ever fall for the allure of the media. They will coax you and talk sweetly to you, but they know what they are doing. Don't fall into their trap.
3. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever mess with Rush Limbaugh. Ever. Not even a toe in the water, because it will get bitten off.

And so here we are.

When Michael Steele fell for the Hughly trap, he bought himself a whole lot of pain that he didn't need. And it could have been avoided! For instance, when they try to paint Limbaugh as head of the Republican Party, you're right Mr. Steele, YOU ARE the head, not Rush. Limbaugh himself says this. That's fine. But don't go on to discount and insult him. Just because a reporter says something, doesn't make it true. You were right, and you didn't need to expand.

Steele is backpedaling now, as well he should. Is Steele in danger of losing his job? That remains to be seen. The GOP needs to be careful. Take his apology at his word, and hold his feet to the fire going forward. The last thing we need is another defector out there decrying the party as somehow racist and non-inclusive, turning into a media darling. We've had enough of those and quite frankly, it doesn't help our image. And it's unneeded.

Let Steele espouse our conservative values going forward, and keep him there.

Iowa Democrats: Don't Kick Us While We're Down

Captain Oveur — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:02:00 GMT

A recent economic activity survey by the Iowa Business Council shows us how completely bad things really are in Iowa, as if you didn't already know by turning on the TV:

I know most of you watching CNBC, Fox Business, the DJIA, or practically any other national broadcast understand that there is a national recession underway. However, it takes a chart like the above to demonstrate what is happening to Iowa's economy. The sharp downturn in economic indicators in Iowa is further evidence that the "change we can believe in" is coming at precisely the wrong time.

Let's recap how the Democrats in the legislature in Iowa are interpreting "change". Last year, swept up in the momentum provided by the Iowa caucuses, they decided to go after collective bargaining, putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of public employees pay and the local property taxes required to pay for them. Fortunately, thanks to groups like the Iowa Progress Project and the Democrats own mistake of shoving the legislation through without enough public input, Culver was forced by popular revolt to veto the bill.

Then, they held the threat of a Right to Work repeal over the heads of Iowa workers in the run up to this session, and as of this writing still occasionally express their desire to take away that competitive advantage for the Iowa job market.

Later, as we covered here and as everyone is aware, they tried to pass prevailing wage and failed by a single vote. And this week, Democrats are loading up to pass a new budget for Iowa that will contain a number of smoke and mirror tricks to hide Iowa's growing budget deficit.

Anyone reading this knows that the last thing you do in a recession is raise taxes on employers or their employees. Anyone reading this also knows that you don't pass pro-union, anti-job measures at a time with unemployment is rising and the number of available jobs are shrinking. The above chart clearly demonstrates the difficulties we face in this current recession.

Democrats would be smart not to kick us when we're down.

Shake-ups in blog world

McCroskey — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:20:00 GMT

We thought we felt a little turbulance in the skies over the past couple of days. However, that wasn't quite the right word for it, since there wasn't really anything bad going on.

Was the shaking from Oveur and a flight attendant in the cockpit? Nope. Checked it out, and Oveur had it on auto-pilot. Was it from Striker's Bible thumping? Nope, not that either.

The shaking felt more like a martini - with all parts mixing together.

Last week, we received an email from Craig Robinson, who is starting an ambitious new site called The Iowa Republican. This is news "by Republicans, for Republicans." Check it out here - www.theiowarepublican.com. This site is the definition of "alternative media." If you check the video, they make no bones about where they stand. They believe the liberal media needs a counter, and they will be the ones to do it.

Yesterday, we received an email from Tim Albrecht that states he is starting a site called The Bean Walker. It's found here - http://www.thebeanwalker.com. This site, from what we've seen in the blogs, is a news aggregator of sorts. "Drudge-ish," if you will. So, while the Iowa Republican will have mostly exclusive content, The Bean Walker will link existing stories. We'll know tonight, where he'll launch the site at a party in Des Moines.

Now, Krusty is telling us that he is moving over to The Iowa Republican - read it here.

Are you all getting this? Lots of developments happening in the blog zone this week. We will keep you posted.

If you know of others, email us at captainoveur@inflyovercountry.com.

Something to Chew On...

Captain Oveur — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:09:00 GMT

Yesterday, I posted some thoughts about 2010, 2012 and the early presidential buzz. Since I was in a 2010 mindset, I thought it might be a good follow up to give our readers a look at the US Senate outlook for 2010. Above is the analysis provided by Charlie Cook's outfit. I think if Republicans don't turn the corner in 2010 and put together a compelling message like they did in 1994, we could be looking at 38 seats in the US Senate.

Republicans will have strong candidates in MO and OH, but those states are getting more and more difficult to win. Kentucky is held by a guy who appears to lose his marbles a little more each day. Specter always has a tough race, and Vitter may encounter trouble thanks to his admission of past problems with prostitutes.

Florida will be a dogfight, and Gregg in NH will have a very difficult race, since the New Englanders appear to have given up on the modern Republican Party except for the disappearing brand of Republican that is personified by Senators Collins & Snowe in Maine.

If you look at the list, it's tough to see how we make any gains. We could beat Burris, which is why the entire Dem establishment is now finally in lockstep on getting rid of him. Bennet in CO is the other possible pickup, but we've got to find a strong candidate in Colorado and the bench isn't as deep as it should be in the Rocky Mountain state.

I think 2010 will come down to the people's judgment on how the Democrats did with complete and total control of Washington, DC, and whether or not their prescription for the economy worked or is working. So all is not lost, because as the Democrats completely redefine the relationship between the people and their government, there is always the opportunity for Republicans to find a message that wakes people to the dangers of Euro-style socialism.

That raises the final question: is it patriotic to hope for Obama to fail as Rush Limbaugh says? If we want to win seats back in 2010, it seems like the only way. Because success for Obama coupled with a bad Senate map leads the Republican party, at least in the Senate, to a certain loss of a couple more seats.

Jindal, Palin, 2010 & 2012: Random thoughts...

Captain Oveur — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:50:00 GMT

We always take notice of Krusty's posts, and often find ourselves in agreement with his premises. He is the Doggfather, after all, of the Iowa rightosphere.

However, yesterday's post on Jindal got me to thinking about 2012 and as I read the short thread, I found myself scratching my head. First, I have to disagree with Krusty strongly on a few comments about Jindal. Krusty says: "I think that if he does run for President in 2012 as a one term Governor, watch out. He’s going to be a fundraising machine, and the smartest guy in the race."

Smartest guy in the race? Not if Newt's in it. But smarter than Huckabee by a country mile. Smarter than Palin by two or three country miles. Jindal's problem is that he's smart in the same way the Gov. Dukakis was smart. He's a wonky tenchocrat who clearly studies harder than any of his political counterparts. He's just not that appealing in the forums where people want to be reassured about the intangible leadership skills that they look for in a president. He can learn it, though, and get better over time.

As for the fundraising machine comment... C'mon, Krusty, you have to know better than that. What evidence is there that Jindal will be a fundraising machine? Zero. There are three ways to amass the finances that earn you the moniker "fundraising machine." First, you can be the establishment's "presumptive nominee". That's where McCain started in 2007, and even that title didn't lead him to raise the kind of money it takes to drown out the smaller challengers. Second, you can be a zillionaire businessman with contacts all over the place and deep pockets like Mitt Romney. Because not only did Romney contribute millions of his own, but he also had a real "fundraising machine" and a very aggressive approach that put him well ahead of other candidates. Third, you can be a grassroots phenom like Ron Paul, and have the cheeto brigade raising money at $15 a pop on the internet and hope it catches fire.

Jindal: Presumptive nominee? Hardly. Zillionaire businessman with contacts around the globe? Nope. Internet celebrity with homegrown donor base including former strippers, pro-wrestlers and basement-dwellers? Doubtful, but we'll see.

As for Palin, she can be the fundraising phenom of the 2010 and 2012 run-up. If the national media doesn't finally do her in with stories about her travel expenses, how much she spent on mani-pedi treatments in 2008, or her reading habits, she could turn her celebrity into real money. She'll likely have the highest performing signature on direct mail pieces to the low-dollar contributors that have been the lifeblood of most state and national party committees. There is something so compelling about her victimhood at the hands of the national press corp, she has the tendency to look like a bucket of chum dumped into a tank filled with revenous great white sharks. People will rally to her with their checkbooks.

Krusty is right about this, though: 2010 will determine what our field looks like and it will shape the nature of the race. There is some potential bad news for the Iowa economy in all this. If 2010 turns into a rough cycle, leaving us with few good candidates, then the normal 2-year caucus campaign will get shortened and will have a fraction of the value of previous campaigns. Also, if Romney decides to run, he'd be smart to skip the caucuses, or at least downplay them to the extent that he comes a few times, but never invests like he did in 2007. That leaves Iowa to Palin, Huckabee, and Jindal in a fight to be the most Christian. And we know that other than a few well-placed $25,000 contributions to the ICA and IRTL, it's cheap to run a campaign in the insular world of Iowa's Christian right. In that race, Jindal comes in third. Huckabee is too good on the stump, and Palin is too Pentecostal and has too good a story on the life issue to lose to someone who looks and sounds like Bobby Jindal.

Now, if 2010 marks the comeback of a new Republican revival based either on an economic message or a small government message, you could see lots of candidates getting into the race. Sanford, Gingrich, maybe even a new business mogul like Whitman or Carly Fiorina could take a run at it. But if 2010 is bad, the party will continue to contract and turn the 2012 primary into a fight among the most pure, most conservative possible candidates. Great for the Iowa caucuses, but probably bad for the party if we want to bring states back into the fold that we lost in 2008: Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Florida, and others.

Either way, 2010 will definitely have a huge impact on the size and scope of the Iowa caucuses, and the field as a whole. Thoughts?

Here's an idea we can rally behind

McCroskey — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:23:00 GMT

Last week, state senator Matt McCoy blew the barn doors off rural Iowa schools by suggesting that smaller schools should close. He argued that it's not cost efficient and the state could save some major funds by doing so.

This met with huge resistance from all political stripes. For the most part, our rural schools actually churn out some of the best graduates in the state.

Key word here is: graduates.

In McCoy's home county, where the largest (i.e. most "cost efficient" by his standards) schools in the state are located, they aren't exactly graduating their kids. Have you looked at the dropout rates in Polk County and the Des Moines school system lately? Yeah - why don't you work on what's right under your nose, before sticking said nose where it doesn't belong.

Today, he comes out with a proposal to target superintendants. He says there should be one per county. The approximate savings to the state is $22 million. We agree with this plan. Where can we sign up?

It is time to clean up bureaucracies in this states, and throw the bums out. We have way too much government, and by eliminating these fat cat salaries, we would actually make a nice big cut in government waste. Every rinky-dink small town school doesn't need a six-figure-salaried blowhard.

This is a step in the right direction. If they can muster this and it works, think about where else we could cut. I'd start at the fancy-pants building the ISEA is house in (which, hmmmm...coincidentally is also located in McCoy's county.) How about cutting back on those fat cats who don't do anything? Once government is cut in a very public fashion, and people survive the "awfulness" that ensues (NEVER materializes), then we can focus our cuts on other things.

As an aside, I'm sure there are excellent superintendants out there who have done excellent jobs turning around their schools. The hidden benefit is that those folks would stay, and take on an even larger share of the state's schools - which should make those schools better as well. This way we can lop off the bottom 2/3 of crummy superintendants. Not to mention the fact that a slightly higher salary and more responsibility will be attractive for the good superintendants looking to land somewhere.

Democrats stroke education's front, steal from taxpayers' behinds

McCroskey — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:09:00 GMT

This article in the Gazette today shows the true intentions of Democrats when it comes to their "priorities" in spending.

They announced that in 2011, they will approve a 2% allowable growth for our schools. They went on to say that this shows their commitment to education. Despite all the doom and gloom, the draconian cuts, the gnashing of teeth - by God, they got our schools funded. See! We love the kids!

What we can't understand is, why in the hell do they set this funding so far in advance? Two years? How does that even make any sense?

We saw the problem this year, where they had a 4% increase for education funding, but that's had to be scaled back because nobody foresaw the plunging economy. So, if we can't even fund this year, why in the world are we allowing schools to set their budgets based on a false number for two years from now?

Oh, and to make up for that shortfall this year, the governor says the schools will use their surpluses and TAX LEVIES.

Yup. The Democrats increase school funding by 4%, campaign on it, get the teachers' unions dirty, filthy money and they win an election. Then, when they have to actually fund it, where does the money come from? You guessed it - our property taxes. You seriously think schools have surpluses in this state? Guess again.

So, they stroke education in the front while grabbing our wallets in the back. And, they win elections this way. Pretty smooth, huh?

Working Class Hero

Captain Oveur — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:18:00 GMT

63 hours.

As of this writing, that's how long Speaker Murphy has taken to prove to his union donors that he's serious about labor issues.

So what's really going on? He knows he doesn't have the vote. Any vote switcher now would be eviscerated with a barrage of phone calls, letters, talk radio slams, robo calls, direct mail, and serious electoral opposition in 2010. So why is Murphy still sitting there, bleary eyed?

It's all about the benjamins.

Unions constitute the largest source of campaign revenue for McCarthy, Murphy, Culver and the rest of the Labor Party in Iowa. Over the coming days, we're going to dig into the finance reports with a little more specificity and arm our passengers with the data and talking points to prove it.

So in his failure, Murphy has proven to his Labor Masters that he's in the fight. He's showing them that he'll do whatever it takes to win or at least put them in a position to win. Last week, he showed that he will break arms, cut deals, threaten and intimidate his OWN members in his win-at-all-costs strategy. Remember, we already have one example of a member who was so angry over her treatment by the Democrats that she switched parties.

We want to remind Democrats who elected them. It wasn't Ken Sagar of the IFL. It wasn't Danny Homan of AFSCME. It was the voters back home who had no idea what the hidden agenda of the Labor Party was when they cast that vote. If money is the mother's milk of politcs, these guys are two of the biggest boobs we've ever seen.

As for the Democrats who bucked the Labor Party leaders, we say thank you. Sorry we were so hard on you guys. It takes real courage to stand up to McCarthy and Murphy, and for McKinley Bailey, Larry Marek, and the others, thank you for sticking with your principles, representing your constituents, and protecting Iowa taxpayers.

It's time to get on with the real agenda. It's time to set aside the political paybacks and focus on job creation, balancing the budget, providing real help to the people of Cedar Rapids who are STILL waiting for leadership after the floods.

Close the machine, and move on, Mr. Speaker. You've already proven yourself to your Masters.

Good thing we posted the picture

Striker — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:55:00 GMT

The voting machine shut down in the Iowa House. This is getting pathetic. Seriously. How desperate does Pat Murphy look right now? Good thing we have the picture posted below, to ensure that when the Democrats "manually" re-enter the votes they did so correctly.

House Republicans need and deserve our support. Send them an email, and let them know you appreciate that they stood up for the Iowa taxpayer. In case Democrats forget, WE are the ones paying their salaries, NOT the unions. Here is the release that was just delivered to the captain's cabin:

Man vs. Machine: House Republicans win another round

(DES MOINES) – Long after last night’s vote on the prevailing wage bill, the legislative vote machine timed out this morning, clearing the whole electronic voting board in the Iowa House of Representatives.

Democratic leadership was forced to re-enter the votes manually, re-opening the machine, which clearly was not constructed with the intention of staying open so long. Typically, the machine is closed immediately following a vote. House Speaker Pat Murphy, however, has kept the machine open, hoping someone will switch from a “no” vote.

“House Republicans continue to remain vigilant in this chamber, even if we outlast the voting machine itself,” said House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen. “Republicans believe this bill was rightly defeated, Iowa taxpayers agree, and now even the machine has said ‘enough.’ We hope the speaker will do the right thing, shut down voting and allow us to focus on other things – like how to revive Iowa’s economy, how to create new jobs and how to fix the state’s budget deficit.”

# # #

In all its glory - keep this one for history

McCroskey — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:16:00 GMT

Below you will find the photo of the voting board in the Iowa House of Representatives. As you can see, the Republicans were able to secure a major victory today. As with the stimulus bill nationally, in Iowa they locked arms to oppose detrimental legislation that would forever change Iowa's business climate, driving up costs and killing jobs.

This was done with a handful of Democrats - look at those votes on this board.

Speaker of the Iowa House Patrick Murphy has decided he will keep "the machine" open. This means that labor thugs are currently - as you read this, regardless of what time - engaging in hostile action to those five Democrats who voted against this bill. They are trying to strong-arm them - and even worse - into changing their vote and supporting this legislation.

Make no mistake. Patrick Murphy would not be sitting his fat, cushy unionized ass in that chair all weekend if he wasn't fairly confident he could get that 51st vote.

Watch carefully. If one vote switches, we WILL let you know. We WILL blast that legislator every single day. We WILL alert the right-leaning blogosphere and make sure they do it as well. We'll keep the heat on them, and as hot as we make it, hell will look good to them at that point.

Mark our word.

Now, on to the board! A green dot means a vote for the job-killing thug legislation. Orange is a vote against - i.e., the good guys.