Category: Ben Lange

Iowa First District Election Update

Bruce Braley (D)
Ben Lange (R)

Lange Lunges Ahead

A late October poll shows challenger Ben Lange charging past incumbent “Borrowing Bruce” Braley to take a narrow 46.9% to 45.4% lead in Iowa’s 1st congressional district. The poll shows 6.9% are still undecided and has a margin of error of 5.1%, so Lange, who has been burning shoe-leather all across the district, definitely can’t coast to the finish line. In this race every vote is important.

Interlopers Support Braley

According to 3rd quarter financial records, 78% of the contributions to Bruce Braley’s campaign came from out of state special interests. 92% of Ben Lange’s donations came from Iowans. This seems to continue a trend since during the 2010 election cycle 71% of Braley’s contributions came from out of state while 86% of Lange’s came from in state.

Despite calling for a ban on lobbyist contributions to Congressmen, “lawyers & lobbyists” have given $718,216 to the Braley campaign during this election.

National Rifle Association Endorses Lange

In addition to being A-rated by Gun Owners of America, Ben Lange has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF). In a statement the NRA-PVF explains:

“Ben Lange will protect our Second Amendment freedoms,” said Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA-PVF. “Because of his strong support of our rights, Ben Lange has earned an “AQ” rating and endorsement from the NRA-PVF.”

Ben Lange supports the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms for law-abiding citizens in Iowa and everywhere in America. Lange also supports “The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act,” which would ensure that law-abiding Americans with a valid concealed handgun permit would be able to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry. Additionally, Lange will pursue the truth in the deadly Operation Fast & Furious scandal and help deliver justice to the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

In contrast, Ben Lange’s opponent, incumbent Representative Bruce Braley, has fought against our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms and is “F” rated by the NRA-PVF.

Bruce Braley refused to join the historic District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, making it clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Braley also supported reinstating the failed Clinton semi-auto gun ban and opposed an amendment that would prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from circumventing the will of Congress, and the American people, by centralizing records of American’s long gun purchases. In addition, he voted against H.R. 4089, “The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act,” which would promote America’s hunting heritage and positively impact sportsmen throughout the country.

“Ben Lange will defend our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage, and the people of Iowa know that Bruce Braley has not,” Cox continued. “We urge all NRA members and gun owners in Iowa’s 1st District to vote Ben Lange for U.S. House of Representatives on November 6.”

For more about Lange’s view on the Second Amendment (and other issues) read my post “10 Questions with Ben Lange.”

I Like Lange






Although I walked away from the “Grand Old Party” at the national level in disgust during the big-spending Bush years, I’ll be proudly marking my ballot for a Republican for Federal office this election. That candidate is Ben Lange. Lange is running for U.S. Congress in Iowa’s First District.

Thirty-three year old Lange bills himself as a “new breed of political leader.” I believe it’s more that he’s a part of a new generation than a new breed. This younger generation is picking up at the spot where former generations of politicians have kicked the can down road. They are inheriting obviously destructive and unsustainable levels of federal debt and spending. Ben Lange seems determined to fix this massive problem rather than passing it on to his three young daughters (or allowing it to destroy the nation around them).

“What we are passing off to the next generation, it’s unsustainable, absolutely. It’s financially irresponsible, absolutely. More important, it’s immoral,” he said recently. “We are taking from a generation that doesn’t yet know the problem, nor can they stand up against it.”

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, has identified our own debt as the single greatest threat to our national security. To combat this threat, Ben Lange supports “enacting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an essential ingredient to any meaningful debt-reduction strategy, and putting an overall cap on federal spending as a percentage of our GDP” as well as opposing all debt-ceiling increases until a debt-reduction strategy is established.

In related economic issues, Ben Lange supports dramatically simplifying the federal tax code and eliminating the death tax, establishing a 3-year sunset on bureaucratic regulations unless reviewed by Congress, repealing Obamacare, auditing the Federal Reserve and assorted other actions to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government.

On foreign policy Ben Lange is not a Ron Paul non-interventionalist, but neither is he a neo-con warmonger. He would “[s]upport only those military actions that satisfy the ‘Declare War’ clause of the U.S. Constitution” and  “[o]ppose unilateral military actions by the President that are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.” He told me: “Our military deserves clear objectives and a definable mission, and when that is accomplished, we should bring them home. America can be the shining city on the hill, without being the world’s police force and nation builder.” Sounds reasonable.

On the Constitution, Lange said, “in all I do as a legislator, the Constitution will serve as my north star. I am duty-bound to follow it and protect it from enemies of our state.”

One of the first indications that I saw that Lange wasn’t just mouthing political platitudes, but actually believed in fiscal conservatism and Constitutional limits on federal action, came during his unsuccessful 2010 run against Congressman Bruce Braley. When the Delhi Dam on the Maqueketa River burst during flooding, Braley went into full pandering mode, promising federal taxpayer money to rebuild it immediately.

Ben Lange took a more principled tack that I don’t often expect from a politician.  In a statement, he expressed sympathy for flood victims but explained: “Based on the facts as I now understand them, I believe the repairs will require the state and local governments, working in concert with the private sector, to fix the Delhi dam. Despite the political pressure to reach an alternative conclusion, I simply do not believe the federal government should be involved with this local issue because it is a privately-owned dam on a recreational lake.”

Lange continued: “I was disappointed, but not surprised, to read Rep. Braley’s statement yesterday, in which he said that we need to spend federal money to bailout a private entity now, and ‘then tough choices are going to have to be made.’ I respectfully disagree with the Congressman; our nation has reached a point where tough choices need to be made now. Rep. Braley’s ‘spend first, think later’ approach to this issue is exactly what is wrong with Congress as a whole, and the kind of thinking that has gotten this country into the fiscal mess we are in today.”

Those words hold true today. The “fiscal mess” continues.

Philosophically, I’m a libertarian and Ben Lange is a conservative. Will we agree on every issue? Probably not. But on the issues involving the biggest existential threat to our nation today, our debt and unsustainable spending, we do. I’m willing to cast my vote to give this “new breed” of politician a shot to try to clean up the fiscal mess created by others, so that my kids (and his) might still have an America to raise their kids in.  That’s why I’m voting for Ben Lange.

Braley Bytes: Crazy Train Edition

More Braley buffoonery. After (IA-01) Rep. “Borrowin’ Bruce” Braley (D) got busted for using taxpayer funds to stage a campaign event (er, sorry, “deficit workshop”) in the newly redistricted area he wants to represent, he wisely canceled the event since it was is clear violation of House ethics rules. According to those rules “[m]embers may not use official funds, including the use of staff resources, to conduct ‘town hall’ meetings or other official gatherings outside their districts.”

Did Braley learn his lesson?  Apparently not. Braley then issued a press release that said he would  “jump aboard a Union Pacific Train on Friday in Fairfax headed to Marshalltown to promote and support enhancements to infrastructure in Iowa. Before the train leaves, Braley [would] hold a short press conference[.]” Neither Fairfax nor Marshalltown are in Braley’s district.  Whoops!

The Iowa Republican points out: “House ethics rules explicitly prohibit Members of Congress from using official House resources, paid for by taxpayers, for purposes outside of their current district. This prohibition extends to new geographical areas, like Fairfax and Marshalltown, that are being added to Members’ districts as a result of redistricting. Members may campaign in these new areas, but not at the taxpayers’ expense.”

Let’s hope the next time Braley rides the rails it will be as a hobo after he’s defeated in November.

10 Questions with Ben Lange

33 year old Ben Lange is the 2012 Republican Nominee for U.S. Congress in Iowa’s First District.  Ben grew up in my old hometown of Quasqueton (pop. 499), raised by working parents. He went off to college and earned a BA and a law degree. He worked as a congressional aide to U.S. Rep. John Kline (R) of Minnesota.

When it was time to start a family Ben returned home to Iowa and opened a private legal practice in Independence (a stone’s throw from his folks in Quasqueton). Lange and his wife, Kelly, now have three young daughters.

Lange ran against incumbent Democrat Bruce Braley in the First District in 2010 and narrowly lost by less than 2% of the vote. In that election, Braley received less than 50% of the votes cast in the district and most of Braley’s donations came from out-of-state donors (while the majority of Lange’s donations came from within the district).

If the 2012 race is anywhere as close as the 2010 race, Lange and Braley will need every vote they can get. Lange has reached out to Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Constitutional Conservatives and the like. He has stated that he doesn’t see much light between himself and libertarians like me.  I wanted to see how close we were and Mr. Lange graciously answered the following questions via email:

1. Probably the biggest commonality between libertarians and conservatives is in fiscal conservatism.   However, this philosophy wasn’t on display when last the GOP controlled Washington. As conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg put it, Bush, Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert, et al. “spent enough money to burn a wet mule. On Bush’s watch, education spending more than doubled, the government enacted the biggest expansion in entitlements since the Great Society (Medicare Part D), and we created a vast new government agency (the Department of Homeland Security).” You’ve said that your top priority would be to “ restore our generational compact and solve the nation’s debt crisis.”   How much would you like to see cut from the federal budget and can you give any specific cuts that you’d like to see in discretionary spending?

America is on a path towards total financial collapse. Since 1993, politicians have quadrupled our national debt from $4 trillion to $16 trillion. If we are going to actually solve the problem, the first step is to modernize the budgetary process itself. Without fixing the process, it will not matter how many cuts are made in our discretionary spending because the real drivers of debt are found in mandatory spending programs. Key changes include enacting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an essential ingredient to any meaningful debt-reduction strategy, and putting an overall cap on federal spending as a percentage of our GDP. There are, of course, a number of examples of specific cuts on the discretionary side, including the millions spent on re-arranging furniture in the Washington D.C. office of the SEC, the millions spent on training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job, the duplication of international education programs, etc.

2. Of course discretionary spending is chump change compared to the “mandatory” spending for the federal entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which almost everyone recognizes are going to bankrupt the country in their current form. You’ve said that you agree with “ [r]estructuring federal entitlement programs that are fiscally unsustainable for the benefit of future generations.”   What are some of your ideas for restructuring these programs?   Can it actually be done when even timid reforms are denounced as cruel and draconian?

We need to reform Social Security and Medicare for future generations of Americans and we need elected leaders with the guts to solve these problems. Unfortunately, Bruce Braley promised to secure these programs, but instead he has chosen partisanship over the well-being of Iowa’s seniors. Since arriving in Washington, Braley has not lifted a finger or offered a single proposal to ensure these programs are available for future generations of Americans. This is not leadership and this is why so many Iowans have lost faith in Washington politicians like Bruce Braley – he is part of the problem. The fact is both programs are going bankrupt and I believe we need to honor the commitment that we have made to our seniors and stand 100% behind the promises that we have made to them. But to fix these problems will require a bipartisan solution. That is why I believe politicians from both political parties need to come to the table and begin a serious conversation based around the following:

(1)    We should agree there is a problem and that Social Security and Medicare are fiscally unsustainable and need to be reformed and secured for current and future generations;

(2)    We should agree that seniors deserve more options and choices in their health care decisions;

(3)    We should agree that seniors’ deserve control over their own health care and government bureaucrats should not be intruding into seniors’ most intimate health care decisions.

3. The battle cry from the GOP has been to “Repeal and Replace” Obamacare.   For those of us who believe that the federal government has no Constitutional business at all healthcare, the “Replace” part of the phrase makes us nervous.   What do you believe should be done with Obamacare?

Repeal it – it is an unsustainable takeover of health care and an unprecedented expansion of government intrusion into people’s lives.  But repealing it cannot be all we do. As a small business owner, and as a husband and father of three girls, I know that we cannot return to the status quo.  Our families and businesses simply cannot afford the 18-20% increases in premium costs like the ones that we have faced in recent years.  The real question is this: Who should be in charge of your health care: the government, or you and your doctor? We must keep individuals in charge of their health care decisions.  To do that, we need more cost transparency, tort reform, and more competition at all levels of the system in order to offer plans and products that fit individual needs and actually bring costs down. The “replace” portion of my plan is to empower individuals with the freedom to make decisions that allow them to choose the health care that best fits their families’ needs.

4. On your website you state that the Second Amendment “protects the right of individuals to possess firearms, apart from service in a militia, and to use such firearms for self-defense and other traditionally lawful purposes.” Do you foresee any threats to this right to keep and bear arms? Are there any changes you’d like to see in federal gun laws?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to use and possess firearms, but the Court did not define the precise scope of the right. In other words, while the Court established the principle of an “individual right to keep and bear arms,” it has not defined what types of arms are covered and what types of local restrictions may be placed on the individual right. As a result, the greatest threat to 2nd amendment rights is the narrowing of the underlying principle through legislative action and subsequent judicial rulings. Tragic events will always lead people to ask what could have been done to prevent them from happening. The sad truth, however, is that more laws and regulations will do nothing to protect law-abiding citizens from those who would willingly cast aside those same laws in order to inflict harm.
5. What do you think is the worst thing that your opponent, Bruce Braley, has done in his time in office?

Bruce Braley’s congressional career is one long trail of broken promises. He says one thing, but has done another. For example, Braley promised to reduce the national debt as his highest priority, instead he voted for a massive spending spree and the personal share of debt owed by Iowans has skyrocketed from $29,000 to $53,000. Braley promised to get tough on Wall Street, instead he bailed out Wall Street on the backs of Iowa’s working families. Braley and the Democrats promised Iowans that spending $825 billion in taxpayer dollars would reduce unemployment to 5.6% by the summer of 2012, instead unemployment remains stuck at 8.2%. Braley promised Iowans a “full and frank discussion” on health care, instead he crammed through a secretive 2,700-page bill in the dead of night and backed a government-takeover of health care even more radical than ObamaCare. He promised not to accept lobbyist contributions and said we needed to end the cozy relationship between legislators and lobbyists, instead once he arrived in Washington he accepted over $70,000 from lobbyists and over $1 million from other affiliated special interest groups. He criticized Gov. Mitt Romney for personally investing in Chinese companies, while at the same time he, himself, personally invests in invests in Chinese auto companies. As Americans we are free to invest however we choose, but don’t tell the people of Iowa one thing and practice another. Iowans are tired of Washington politicians like Bruce Braley who say one thing and do another. We cannot continue sending the same old politicians to Washington and hope for different results.

6. A major point of contention between “Ron Paul Republicans” and many other Republicans seems to be on foreign policy. On your website you state that “it is critical that our national objectives in [Iraq and Afghanistan] – and other challenges such as cyber security, Iran, and Syria – are made clear to the America public and our political leaders keep the American people informed and engaged as our troops, diplomats, and intelligence personnel protect our interests abroad.”   What criteria does an interest abroad have to meet for you to consider it worth American blood and treasure?

First and foremost, the use of force abroad needs to satisfy the requirements set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This means, for example, that military action needs to conform with the ‘Declare War’ clause of the Constitution. Wars should be reserved as a last resort, but may become necessary when, for example, vital national security interests are at stake and when American lives and property are attacked. When we do commit to using force, our military should have the tools and training it needs to get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Our military deserves clear objectives and a definable mission, and when that is accomplished, we should bring them home. America can be the shining city on the hill, without being the world’s police force and nation builder.

7. You’ve done a good job personalizing the concept of the national debt so people can see that it is a moral issue that we are essentially stealing from our children.  Isn’t it also a moral issue if we willingly allow strangers to grope our children at airports?  Do you think that the TSA is a necessary trade-off for safety or should it be altered or abolished?

As a general rule, I believe that any time a private company can provide a service at the same or better cost to the consumer and equal effectiveness than a government agency, we should look to end that agency.  With respect to TSA, even one of the original authors of the legislation that created the agency, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), recently described the TSA as “a complete fiasco.” There is some movement on the Hill to privatize the bulk of the agency’s current responsibilities, including by Mica, and I would support those efforts.

8. You have said that “the time has come for a new generation of leadership” that promotes “a legislative agenda rooted not in the coercive power of the state, but in the liberty of individuals to pursue virtue.” Is there any specific legislation that you’d like to see that would promote these ideals?

Repealing Obamacare would be a good start.

9. Besides any listed above, what federal laws (if any) would you like to see REPEALED?

In addition to the immediate and full repeal of Obamacare, another major piece of legislation I believe should be repealed is the No Child Left Behind Act. The federal government should be less involved in public education, not more involved. Parents and teachers should be in charge of their children’s education, not bureaucrats in Washington.

10. If elected you’ll be asked to swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same[.]”   What does that mean?

Taking an oath of office is one of the most solemn commitments a citizen can undertake. To me, this oath means that in all I do as a legislator, the Constitution will serve as my north star. I am duty-bound to follow it and protect it from enemies of our state.

Braley Bytes: Fast & Furious Edition

The recent vote to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents in the investigation of the Department of Justice operation “Fast and Furious,” which resulted in the deaths of over 300 Mexicans and an American border patrol agent, was “purely political theater” according to 1st District Rep. Bruce “Clunkers” Braley.  Braley voted against holding Eric Holder in contempt, both in committee and when the measure came before the full house.

If Braley thinks that the Fast and Furious investigation is merely “political theater,” FoxNews.com contributor John R. Lott Jr. points out a salient fact that Braley should bare in mind: “People died. It is something to remember during today’s historic House vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. Never before has a sitting attorney general been held in contempt.

Lott continued, “With all the hoopla over past scandals from Watergate to Filegate to Pardongate, the cover up was always worse than the crime. Yet, in ‘Fast and Furious,’ the guns that the US government supplied to Mexican drug gangs have been used to kill one American border agent and over 300 Mexican citizens  and commit numerous other crimes.

“To date, because of administration stonewalling, we don’t have answers to the most basic questions. Why would the Obama administration give drug gangs guns without trying to trace them? Why not inform Mexican officials about the program so that the Mexicans could try tracing the guns on the Mexican side of the border? Why start pushing untraceable guns to Mexico at the same time that the Obama administration was making their wildly false claim that 90 percent of crime guns in Mexico were from the US?

“One hopes that it was sheer incompetence combined with a desire to stonewall any investigation, but the fact that people knew that the guns weren’t being traced raises questions even about this explanation. It raises the possibility that the guns were being sent to Mexico as part of a plan to push for more gun control.”

Whether it was or wasn’t part of a plan to push for more gun control as Dr. Lott suggests (and I agree), Holder has stonewalled the congressional investigation to the best of his ability.

Small town lawyer Ben Lange, who is challenging Braley for the 1st District seat, had this to say about Thursday’s contempt vote:

“Border Agent Brian Terry died at the hands of weapons given to drug lords by a federal agency under the jurisdiction of Attorney General Eric Holder. The Attorney General subsequently admitted to misleading Congress and retracting a letter that contained false information about what officials in the administration knew about the ‘Fast and Furious Operation.’ The Attorney General then refused to turn over documents that would allow our elected representatives and the Terry family the ability to hold our government accountable and find out who knew what and when. Instead of holding the Attorney General accountable, however, Congressman Braley chose to play politics. The family of Brian Terry deserves better. Iowans deserve better.”

Ben Lange: "Restoring the Generational Compact"

Ben Lange, candidate for U.S. Congress (IA-01), recently had an op-ed piece at the Iowa Republican titled “Why I’m Running: Restoring the Generational Compact.”  In it Lange, who seeks to unseat liberal Democrat Bruce “Clunkers” Braley, was definitely speaking my language.  He quoted extensively from the founding fathers and kept hammering away at fiscal issues.

Far from just quoting dry econ-class statistics, Lange makes them personal in a way that hits home with those of us who are parents.

“[T]he current generation of political leadership has permitted and tolerated our national debt to skyrocket to more than $15.5 trillion, one-third of which is held by foreign governments whose national interests are not our own.

“Politicians now borrow 40% of every dollar spent by the federal government on the backs of my three little girls – ages 1, 3, and 5 – indebting them to the tune of $150,000 before they can even ride a bike.

“We are witnessing one of the most profound moral failures and social injustices in American history – perpetrated not by one race against another race, nor by one class against another class, but by one generation against the next.

“The current generation of political leadership, guided by vision that extends no further than their snouts and marked by a grade of cowardice foreign to the American experience, has all but declared war on the next generation.

“In this war, however, the invaders face no resistance from a population who cannot yet know and cannot yet speak of the atrocities being committed.

“Who will be their voice for justice? Who will speak truth to power?”

Of course it is politics, so Lange pointed out some of the “highlights” of Bruce Braley’s record in congress:

  • Voted for trillion dollar deficits that have nearly doubled our national debt.
  • Voted to increase the national debt limit seven times without cuts.
  • Voted against a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • Voted to bailout big corporations on the backs of the working class.
  • Voted for a de facto government takeover of health care.
  • Voted against free trade agreements to increase domestic exports.
  • Voted against energy exploration to increase supply and lower gas prices.
  • Voted for cap-and-trade to impose unnecessary costs on small businesses.

Finally, Lange touched on some “common sense solutions” that he believed were required:

  1. “A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires Congress to limit projected expenses to projected revenue, with reasonable exceptions.
  2. “Restructuring federal entitlement programs that are fiscally unsustainable for the benefit of future generations.
  3. “Replacing Obamacare with a patient-centered model that addresses rising health care costs by reducing market distortions and providing greater transparency, competition, and choice for patients.”

I liked his op-ed enough that I perused his campaign website.  According to it, “Ben Lange’s political philosophy is derived from the founding documents of the United States, among them the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Federalist Papers.”  I like the sound of that.

It also says that his top priorities are: 1.”Restoring the Generational Compact: Solving our nation’s debt crisis” 2.”Rebuilding the American Enterprise: Growing and streamlining the U.S. economy” 3.”Reviving Humility in Governance: Refocusing government and repealing Obamacare” and 4. “Reclaiming Public Education: Empowering parents and expanding school choice.”  No mention of Bush-era Republican staples like expanding the war on terror or a federal marriage amendment.

In 2010 Bruce Braley beat Lange by only two measly percentage points (which was about the amount that the Libertarian Party candidate got).  If Lange can stick to a message of cutting government (and really sound like he means it) and steers clear of derisive social issues he may be able to pick up enough libertarian-leaning voters and Tea Party-type independents to topple Braley in the general election.  But he has to get his party’s nomination first and competition may be fierce.

Braley Bytes: Ben Lange Back To Battle Braley Edition

According to Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican:

On Wednesday, Ben Lange, the Republican nominee in the 1st Congressional District in 2010, will announce that he will begin to actively prepare for a rematch with Congressman Bruce Braley in the reconfigured 1st Congressional District. Lange narrowly lost to Braley in what was one of the closest races in the country in 2010. Lange lost to Braley by 4,209 votes, which was less than two percent of the vote.

A rematch between Lange and Braley would be interesting, but while the candidates will be familiar with one another, the reconfigured 1st District will make the 2012 campaign much different from the 2010 contest.

Other potential Republican challengers to Braley include Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje and former C.R. mayor Paul Pate.  Robinson continues:

Not only is Bruce Braley is vulnerable, but it seems certain that Republicans will once again put up a tough candidate against him. Braley took less than 50 percent of the vote last cycle, a critical threshold for campaign odds-makers. Since the last election, his star has continued falling, including losing his choice seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has become marginalized in Washington and has continued casting votes (aside from government takeovers, bailouts, and Obamacare) that will put him at odds with the majority of voters in the new district.

Since he’s a conservative and I’m a libertarian, Ben Lange and I don’t agree on every political point.  But, I have to admit, I’ve got a soft spot for Lange, not just because of his noble sounding first name, but because we both grew up around the same unpronounceable small town of Quasqueton.  Besides, I wish luck to anyone who wants to add Bruce Braley to the ranks of the unemployed.

Braley Bytes: "Debt for Clunkers" Edition

Besides helping to nearly double the national debt, Iowa First District Representative Bruce Braley’s biggest achievement in Congress is his co-sponsorship of the 2009 “Debt for Clunkers” program. (This program is sometimes erroneously called “Cash for Clunkers” under the mistaken assumption that an organization that’s $13 trillion in debt and hemorrhaging $1 trillion more than it’s taking in each year actually has “cash” to hand out.)

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, wrote a good summary of the program shortly after it ended in 2009. Forgoing the usual academic niceties, Edwards dubbed Debt for Clunkers as “the dumbest government program ever.” Here’s Edwards’ rundown of the program’s dubious achievements:

  • “A few billion dollars worth of wealth was destroyed. About 750,000 cars, many of which could have provided consumer value for many years, were thrown in the trash. Suppose each clunker was worth $3,000 at a guess, that would mean that the government destroyed $2.25 billion of value.
  • “Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.
  • “Taxpayers were ripped off $3 billion. The government took my money to give to people who will buy new cars that are much nicer than mine!
  • “The federal bureaucracy has added 1,100 people to handle all the clunker administration. Again, taxpayers are the losers.
  • “The environment was not helped. See here and here.
  • “The auto industry received a short-term “sugar high” at the expense of lower future sales when the program is over. The program apparently boosted sales by about 750,000 cars this year, but that probably means that sales over the next few years will be about 750,000 lower. The program probably further damaged the longer-term prospects of auto dealers and automakers by diverting their attention from market fundamentals in the scramble for federal cash.” 

Edwards’ last point is vividly illustrated in the following graph from John Stossel’s website. Although there’s a temporary “blip” when the $3 billion in borrowed money is injected into the automobile market, as soon as that is removed auto sales drop right back to where they were. The only lasting effect of “Debt for Clunkers” was to put America’s children $3 billion further in debt to the Red Chinese.

If the “dumbest government program ever” is his crowning achievement, it’s easy to see that Bruce Braley is a real lemon. If 1st District voters are willing to push, pull or drag Braley out of office in November, there are a couple of newer and better models just waiting to be driven off the lot.

How about a 1979 Republican Ben Lange?  The Lange features lower taxes, lower spending and higher integrity than our current clunker.  If you really want to save some bucks we also have the economy model, a vintage Libertarian Rob Petsche.  The Libertarian has many of the same fine features as the Republican model, but with much lower imperial maintenance costs.  Either one would be fine for us to park in DC for a few years.

So, now what can I do to set you up with a new representative today?

Braley Bytes

Here is another installment of my new series of articles dealing with Iowa’s so-called “representative” of the First District in the U.S. House, Bruce Braley.  I’ve changed the title of the feature from “Braley Bites” to the less provocative sounding “Braley Bytes” because I’m still trying to get Braley to hand me a juicy federal grant so I can finally quit working for my money like a sucker.

Braley Continues Assault On Constitution & Our Children

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce[.] The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [Emphasis added.]

When Bruce Braley and his cohorts in Congress read words like those from the framers of the Constitution their brains must translate it into those squawking trombone sounds of the adult characters in the “Peanuts” cartoons.  From Braley’s vote for Obamacare to his signature piece of legislation, the “Debt for Clunkers” program, just about everything that Braley has done since he was elected has been an affront to constitutionally defined federalism as spelled out in the enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment.  With his yes vote on the painstakingly named “XXXXXX Act of XXXXXX” (it was rushed through so hastily, that that is it’s official name!) Braley keeps his Constitution-trashing streak going.

Not satisfied with the record amount of deficit spending that they had already inflicted on future generations of Americans (i.e. our children, who must pay the bill, plus interest) congress was rushed back to DC by the Democrat leaders for a special session in order to spend even more money.  The “no-name bill” they voted on (H.R. 1586, by number) was a $26.1 billion “bailout.” 

$10 billion was to go to pay the salaries of teachers, long known as stalwart supporters of the Democrat Party.  (Since Braley voted to give them the money, I guess that the $7,500 that the American Federation of Teachers gave Braley this election cycle was a good investment.)  Another $16.1 billion went to the extension of Federal Medicaid matching rates.  Education and healthcare are duties that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states and to the people and are definitely not any of those “few and defined” “external objects” that Madison referred to.  But I guess Braley knows what the Constitution means better than one of the guys who wrote it.

Lange Moving Into Striking Distance?

Although unseating an entrenched incumbent like Braley is a difficult task, in fighter-pilot terminology, Braley better “watch his six.”  A new poll shows that upstart Republican challenger Ben Lange may be closing in on the big-spending politico.  The poll, commissioned by the American Future Fund, shows Lange trailing “Clunkers” Braley by only 4.4 points among those who identified themselves as “certain to vote.”  While the poll did show Lange still trailing by 11 points among the entire sample in the Democrat-leaning district, it also showed that only 39% of those in the district thought Braley “deserved re-election.” Apparently not listed as an option in the survey was Libertarian candidate Rob Petsche, so it’s unsure how he’ll affect the election.

A Dam Dilemma

Delhi Dam during July flood (Iowa State Patrol photo)

In my last post I mentioned the Delhi Dam which ruptured during recent flooding.  Whether or not to rebuild it (and how) has become somewhat of hot button issue here in Iowa.  The dam is owned and maintained by the Lake Delhi Recreation Association.  Homeowners on the lake paid dues to the association.   Since the dam was a privately owned structure, should taxpayer funds be used to rebuild it? 

Some citizens and politicians, like Governor Culver and U.S. Representative Bruce Braley, say yes.  On the day after the dam failed, Governor Culver assured, “We’re going to throw everything we have at it, in terms of federal and state resources.”  Others disagree.  Ed Failor Jr. of Iowans For Tax Relief said, “It isn’t the obligation of taxpayers to alleviate risk from our society.  By having private ownership of that dam, they assumed risk.”  I’m inclined to agree with the second camp. 

That’s not to say that I don’t think that Lake Delhi should be rebuilt.  I love Lake Delhi.  For all the talk of this being a “private” lake, it was very much a public asset.  I didn’t own a cabin on the lake, yet I spent many hours fishing and pleasure boating with friends there in my youth. I frolicked at Freddy’s Beach.   I dined at the Pizza Place and Camp-O.  I camped along its shores at Turtle Creek County Park.  I hope to do so again someday with my kids.  I just hope that the dam will be rebuilt in a responsible manner.  (My friend strandediniowa over at Between Two Rivers blog stole some of my thunder on this, but I’ll soldier on.  His post, too, is worth a read.)

There are plans for a new dam to produce hydroelectricity.  It should be possible to find investors (a power company perhaps) to help finance such a project.  Granted it would take longer to scrape the money together and the Lake Association would have to be more creative than if “rich” Uncle Culver or Braley just whip out the taxpayer’s money, but in the long run it would be better for everyone.

The lake is important to Delaware County.  So, if local voters decided to throw their own local tax money at this with a bond issue or something (if that’s even possible) I think that might not be too bad.  At least it would localize the cost to those who most benefit from it.  If the state DNR lent some expertise to the project, I probably wouldn’t lose much sleep.  Even if the state and local government do get involved somehow, the project definitely doesn’t require Bruce Braley’s sack of borrowed Chinese blood money. 

Braley said, “My job is to help identify and secure all potential federal resources to assist those individuals and businesses in the 1st District who are eligible to help recover from the recent flooding.”  Bull crap!  According to the oath he swore before God, his job is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”  The Constitution doesn’t give Congress authority to rebuild a privately-owned dam on an intrastate lake.

Small-town lawyer Ben Lange, who is challenging Braley for the First District seat, seems to get this.  In a statement, the Republican Lange expressed sympathy for flood victims but explained: “Based on the facts as I now understand them, I believe the repairs will require the state and local governments, working in concert with the private sector, to fix the Delhi dam. Despite the political pressure to reach an alternative conclusion, I simply do not believe the federal government should be involved with this local issue because it is a privately-owned dam on a recreational lake.”

Lange continued, speaking of the fiscal ramifications of this and similar usurpation by Congress: “I was disappointed, but not surprised, to read Rep. Braley’s statement yesterday, in which he said that we need to spend federal money to bailout a private entity now, and ‘then tough choices are going to have to be made.’ I respectfully disagree with the Congressman; our nation has reached a point where tough choices need to be made now. Rep. Braley’s ‘spend first, think later’ approach to this issue is exactly what is wrong with Congress as a whole, and the kind of thinking that has gotten this country into the fiscal mess we are in today.” 

I couldn’t have said it better myself.  Props to Lange for taking the constitutional high road rather than the pandering political easy road on this issue.

Let’s rebuild Lake Delhi.  But let’s do it right; let’s do it local.