Category: Iowa

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.”

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?”

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.

"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.

How About A Little Separation Of Church And State?

Christian conservatives and the ACLU get along almost as famously as the Hatfields and McCoys. However, it appears the two may have to grit their teeth and work together to oppose a legislative bill here in Iowa.

The religion clause of the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[…].” The ACLU focuses on the first part of the clause, the religious right focuses on the second part. (Libertarians like to focus on both parts.)

The ACLU often defends the First Amendment’s supposed “wall of separation” between church and state. The Christian right likes to point out that the First Amendment mentions no such wall and concludes that the ACLU is merely trying to keep Christians from participating fully in the public realm. Now however, Christians may be willing to step into a breach in that wall of separation with the ACLU to fight House File 179.

HF 179, “An Act including members of the clergy as mandatory reporters of child abuse, and making penalties applicable,” was introduced into the Iowa legislature by a Republican and a Democrat. The sponsors are supposedly an evangelical Christian and a Baptist, respectively. The bill would require members of the clergy to be mandatory reporters of child abuse, just like doctors, teachers and cops are now. There is an exception for information obtained during religious confession.

Nobody wants children in Iowa to be abused, so what can the problem be with this proposed law? The ACLU of Iowa lists several.

For one, ACLU-IA explains, the bill makes an exception for “penitential communication”, which means “confession.” Since the Catholic Church is the only one that has formal rules about seeking penitence through a clergy member, religious counseling in other religions would be open game. (This may be why the Catholic Conference is the only religious group to have endorsed the legislation so far.)

Since Iowa is always shorthanded on psychiatrists and family counselors, the minister is often a small town’s first responder for family crises. Do we really want to discourage people from talking to their minister for fear of immediate police involvement?

Another problem is, what is “a member of the clergy?” The bill defines it as “a person authorized by ordination, licensing, or other form of entitlement of the religious group or sect with which the person is affiliated to provide pastoral care and counseling to the group, sect, or others.” Huh?

Some churches have more formal training and accreditation procedures for their clergy than do others. In some churches all members are considered “ministers.” In the end, the state would have to issue some kind of standards on who is and who is not clergy, if the law is to be enforceable. See the wall crumbling?

All in all, the bill would open up a huge can of First Amendment worms regardless of what clause your group likes to focus on. Let’s hope that these two unlikely allies, conservative Christians and the ACLU, like Churchill and Stalin, can crush the common threat. Then they can get back to clobbering each other.