Friday, January 16, 2004
WHY IS DEAN SLIPPING?
Suddenly, Howard Dean is slipping in the Iowa polls. Last week he had a nice lead over Dick Gephardt. Today, polls from Research 2000 and Zogby show him either with a one point lead or in second place.
One standard explanation is the gaffe factor, that Dean’s many misstatements have made a lot of Democrats nervous. Undoubtedly, that is a big part of the reason. Here’s another: Dean is bit of a charlatan, and potential caucus-goers are getting wise to it.
On Tuesday, January 6th, I followed the Dean campaign around to what would easily be called events for the upper-middle class. The first took place at the Summerset Inn and Winery in Indianola, the second took place at the middle class house of Jim Bennau, and the third at the very upscale house of Ned Chiodo. Chiodo, not incidentally, is a former Democratic State Representative and now a lobbyist with clients such as Aventis, McDonald’s, and Wells Fargo. At these events, Dean usually wears his suit jacket. His manner is low key. He delivers his talks with none of his famed animation.
Contrast that with the way he presented himself at the American Legion the following morning. Among a heavily union crowd, Dean has the suit jacket off and the shirt sleeves rolled up. His speech is fiery: angry tone, elevated voice, finger stabbing the air, with his face reddening off and on.
Interesting, isn’t it, that among a crowd that is well educated, Dean is soft-spoken, almost as though he wants to gently persuade the people present. But with a union crowd—i.e., lots of folks with nothing more than a high school education—Dean acts as though he can easily play upon their emotions. But a lot of union members in attendance seemed as though they weren’t letting Dean manipulate them.
While there was a lot of enthusiastic applause during Dean’s speech at American Legion event, I soon noticed that a lot of folks were not clapping with each applause line. Rather, they sat there with almost pensive looks on their faces. Curious, I began interviewing those in attendance right after Dean was finished. Sitting next to me was Fred, a retired member of the plumbers and pipefitters union. He was undecided, but leaning heavily toward Gephardt. He told me that there “were a lot of undecideds in the unions.”
Next I ran into Don, who had Dean stickers on his sweater. Surely a Dean supporter, I thought. But no, he was a county chair, so he was not expressly supporting anyone. When asked if he was leaning toward anyone, he said either Gephardt or Dean. He was a former UAW and Musician’s union member. When asked if Dean had done anything to win him over that morning, he replied, “I’m not sure.”
Indeed, of the Dean supporters I talked to, most were not union members. Typical was Roberta, who worked in management at a steel plant. Why did she support Dean? “Because he opposed the Iraq war,” she said. She also liked the fact that Dean was pro-choice and thought he had the right opinion on the gay issue.
I suspect that this reflects what is going on with the polls. At first, the Dean hype—his internet fundraising, his sudden leap to the frontrunner due to his opposition to the war—attracted a lot of upper-middle class Democrats. The hype translated into support among people in Iowa who were likely caucus-goers. But now that a lot of Iowa caucus-goers, especially the union folks, are getting to meet Dean, his support is dropping. The problem is Dean has made the mistake of equating “uneducated” with “stupid.” While most don’t have college degrees, union members can be quite cagey and skeptical. I suspect they aren’t overly sold on a Northeasterner giving them a sermon.
Back in December I bet that Gephardt would likely win. Had you asked even a few days ago who was going to win in Iowa, I would have said Dean. Today, it’s anybody’s guess. I’ll make a prediction on Monday, but not one with much confidence.
UPDATE: One of my readers, Patrick, left this note in the comments: “Wow! Candidates pandering to the crowd they are with--imagine that. I'm not a Dean fan, but it’s hard to imagine voters are being turned off in large numbers by a politician doing what politicians do. Next, you'll be telling us that moms are concluding that they're only kissing their babies to get their vote.”
Well, I don’t know about that mom/baby part, but Patrick is definitely right that all politicians pander, to some extent, to the crowds they are dealing with. My point, which I didn’t make clear, is that Dean’s method of pandering, at least in front of union crowds, is ineffective.
. . .
Thursday, January 15, 2004
GUESS WHICH SERVICE WILL NOT FALL UNDER THE SALES TAX EXPANSION?
Roth C.P.A. wryly notes that attorney services will not be subject to the sales tax expansion. Could it have something to do with trial lawyers being one of Vilsack’s biggest supporters? Nah, must be a coincidence.
. . .
THE ENDORSEMENT I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR!
Carol Moseley Braun is dropping out and endorsing Howard Dean.
Since Dean has a diversity problem, maybe he could appoint her Secretary of State should he win in November. I hear she knows Africa well.
. . .
GOVERNOR WILLTAX
Well, it’s time to tell it like it is, sports fans, and Tom Vilsack is easily the worst Governor since I’ve been here in Iowa. Well, okay, I’ve only been here for him and Terry Branstad. So what? He still stinks!
Looking over his State of the State Address, I couldn’t help getting this image in my mind of the Des Moines Register editorial board sitting around in fits of ecstasy. Why, his speech read just like their recent editorial. Imagine that! Numbed minds must think alike.
Here were my two favorite parts:
A sluggish economy, a jobless recovery, and zealous tax reductions when times were better, help to create a significant gap between available resources and investments needed to support our values and meet our needs in education, health care, and public safety and security – the foundation of a transformed Iowa.
and,
Let me be as clear as I can be. A budget based solely on available revenues under funds education at every level and fails to meet our basic responsibility to provide our children with great schools, colleges and universities.
Notice how, like all good liberals, he blames tax cuts but leaves out overspending. Let’s see here, during the 1990s we cut income taxes one time, to the tune of 10%. That’s overzealous? And how many times did we increase spending in the 1990s? Just about every year. In the Vilsack dictionary overzealous must be defined as “doing something one time,” and moderation is defined as “doing something all the time.” Funny, alternate parallel universe our Governor lives in.
Let’s look at some of the spending Vilsack has engaged in while Governor:
-Expanding state health-care costs by increasing HAWK-I to cover all kids up to 200% of the poverty level.
-$40 million for reducing class size, despite the fact that K-12 enrollment is declining.
-$250 to $300 million to boost teacher pay, even though teachers are paid, on average, 33% more than the average private sector employee.
-Some very nice raises for state employees, including one last year that cost the state $101 million over the next two years, and negotiated away the state’s ability to furlough state employees.
Seems that Vilsack confuses meeting our “basic responsibilities” and supporting “our basic values” with sops to his two largest constituencies, the teachers’ union and the state employees’ union.
But Vilsack is not done. Even though we are in the midst of a budget shortfall, he wants more money for state government! NOT ONLY ARE THEY BIG, THEY ARE ALSO MADE OF BRASS! He wants $120 million more for Buy Community Leaders Political Support Fund Vision Iowa and Community Attractions and Tourism Program. He also wants the state legislature to fully fund (to the tune of $503 million) the Corporate Welfare Slush Fund Grow Iowa Values Fund. And here’s the irony of that last part—oh, the irony is so thick you could choke a whale with it; and I’m not talking about a beluga, I’m talking one of those big Blue jobbers: The Feds sent us $100 million to shore up the budget shortfall this year, but instead of being used to meet our “basic responsibilities”, it was put into the Grow Iowa Values Fund, so that we could give grants to needy corporations like Wells Fargo and GCommerce.
So, just like the spoiled son who feels entitled and sticks his parents for the bill when he makes a mess, Vilsack is demanding “sacrifice” from—you guessed it, sports fans!—the Iowa taxpayer. He’s going to raise business and property taxes close tax loopholes and stick smokers with part of the bill raise cigarette taxes to help pay for health care costs. My favorite is this idea of “modernizing the sales tax.” It’s not raising the sales tax, mind you. No, no! It just means that “expanding the sales tax base” to include engineering, surveying, accounting and consulting services. I wonder if those folks in those industries would agree that they are not facing a tax increase. Here’s the best part: the expansion of the base will allow Iowa politicians to reduce its sales tax rate by about 15% at some point in the future. We promise. Trust me. Just like Joe Isuzu.
To get Iowans to assume the position agree to this tax increase, Vilsack comes up with a very original idea. Threaten to cut all of the essential services first: 3,900 teaching jobs, increased class sizes, a reduction of university and college course offerings, and less police and fire protection, no ozone to protect you from the sun’s harmful radiation, no cookies and milk after school, and no Avon Lady calling. Okay, I made a few of those up. Nevertheless, when was the last time that you heard a government official say, yes we’ll cut the upper-level education bureaucrats working on self-esteem training? Or willing to cut the funding for community murals? It’s always the most essential stuff that they warn us will get the axe, as it is easier to get the taxpayers to pony up.
He also tells us that our schools don’t have enough supplies:
Deb Henry, a 3rd grade teacher from Ankeny, brought the threat into clear focus when she catalogued the meager supplies she would receive for her 176 students next semester: One box of number two pencils, 12 pencils to a box; 10 boxes of crayons, 16 crayons to a box; three packets of construction paper, 50 sheets to a packet and five glue sticks.
and,
We understood better the limitations on learning when Desira Johnson, a parent at the Ankeny hearing held up this 1984 textbook used today to teach her child and her classmates about the world around them. Our children will experience difficulties understanding our complex world if they must continue to rely on textbooks that teach of a place which no longer exists – the Soviet Union.
Makes you wonder where all that money we’ve spent on education over the last ten years has gone. Oh that’s right, to make the teachers’ unions happy boost the salaries of the poor, underpaid teachers.
Well, don’t say that I never point out the silver linings in the cloud. Because this cloud has some pretty big ones:
1. Vilsack’s idea has, according to one of my sources, sunk like a lead turd. Even the Senate Minority Leader, Democrat Mike Gronstal said, “We remain skeptical, and I'd say somewhat resistant to tax increases.”
2. It almost certainly means that Vilsack is not running for reelection in 2006. He went to great lengths to avoid raising taxes so as to get reelected in 2002. His proposal would make it very easy for an opponent to hit him with the “raise taxes” club in 2006. So, we’ve only (yeah, ONLY) three more years of this fool. For possible reason why this might be wrong, see number five.
3.Vilsack’s hopes for getting Democratic House (if not a Senate) are presently swirling the bowl. I can just see the ads: “Vote Republican, or your taxes will go up.” True, I’m not thrilled with the current GOP bunch as they went along—heck, promoted—the Corporate Welfare Boondoggle Grow Iowa Values Fund. But at least they hold the line on taxes.
4. If the GOP legislature holds true to form, Iowans will get to vote on a ballot measure this November to amend the state constitution so that any future tax increase will require a 2/3s vote of the legislature and then approval of the voters. The Governor’s threatened tax hike couldn’t have come at a better time, insofar as the ballot measure’s proponents are concerned. Remind me to send Vilsack a thank you letter.
5. Finally, you may be saying, wait a minute, why would Vilsack do something that benefits the GOP and anti-tax forces? Folks, I’ve called him reckless, irresponsible, and ballsy. I never said he was smart.
. . .
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
HARD NEWS!
Over at Tusk and Talon, Chad notes that Iowa Courts are working hard with your tax dollars, and the Des Moines Register is working hard to bring you the news.
. . .
WHY JOHN EDWARDS?
If you haven’t yet read the Des Moines Register editorial board’s endorsement of John Edwards, don’t bother. I can sum it up in one very simple sentence:
DEAN CAN’T BEAT BUSH.
. . .
BUT WHILE I’M ON THE SUBJECT…
In that same editorial, the Register indulges some liberal stereotypes about Republicans and Democrats, wealth, and opportunity. Yes, I know you’re smirking a bit, and saying with a sarcastic tone, “Noooo, Dave! Really?” Okay, okay. But it is still instructive insofar as it reveal how far some on the left have not come in understanding conservatism.
Here’s the money quote:
Bush is from a prominent family, attended Ivy League universities, made his fortune in business and fervently believes the philosophy of "a rising tide lifts all boats." His policies flow from the conviction that all Americans will gain if business is largely unfettered and if investors are better rewarded.
Edwards is from a working-class family, attended public universities, made his fortune representing ordinary people in the courtroom and fervently believes that America does best when doors of opportunity are open to anyone willing to work and get ahead. He says those opportunities are being choked off in an America today that rewards wealth, not work. Emblematic of his approach is his proposal to pay the first year's tuition to a state university or community college for any student willing to work.
The Register continues to think unfettered businesses and well-rewarded investors are inconsistent to open doors of opportunity. Who, exactly, does the Register think provides opportunity—if by “opportunity” we mean jobs—the government? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is probably “yes.” But without businesses creating wealth, and without investors becoming wealthy by putting money into those businesses, there would be a great deal less opportunity in this country.
And while I’ve mentioned wealth, since when are rewarding wealth and rewarding work mutually exclusive? Indeed, they are intricately linked. Wealth doesn’t exist without work; in fact, wealth is the reward for work. What the Register doesn’t understand, and probably never will, is that increasing the incentive to work requires increasing the incentive to for wealth. That’s the point in reducing income-tax rates. Cut taxes, and you let individuals keep more of their own income. Let them keep more of their own income, and you give them more incentive to work to make more income. What lefties like the Register never seem to understand is that this process doesn’t occur in a vacuum: the process of creating more wealth requires the wealth-creators to create more jobs, thereby creating opportunity for others.
Among the other stereotypes that the Register indulges is that Republicans are all Ivy League, “idle rich” folk, while the Democrats are hard workers like John Edwards. But according to FoxNews, other Democratic candidates are now pointing out that while he was a trial lawyer Edwards took advantage of tax laws to avoid paying Medicare taxes. Edwards, according to the Register, complains that “One America pays the taxes, while another America gets the tax breaks.” Funny, but it seems that Edwards is part of that “another America”. It’s also worth noting that as a trial lawyer, Edwards was in one of the few lines of work that doesn’t actually create any wealth. It merely transfers it from the businesses that are sued to the lawyers who are suing. That’s how Edwards made his fortune.
It would be nice if the Register started taking conservative arguments seriously, and stop treating those on the political right like caricatures. That’ll be the day.
. . .
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
LOSING THE TAX DEBATE
Dean’s payroll tax cut plays right into Bush’s hands.
. . .
IOWA’S FUTURE: SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!!!
The Des Moines Register editorial page shows why you can’t trust liberals with your tax dollars: they can’t set spending priorities. The Register wants money spent on, well, just about everything:
Agree to raise taxes temporarily for schools. K-12 education has been severely underfunded in recent years, and Iowa's reputation for good schools will be damaged unless something is done now. A substantial increase in Iowa's school-aid formula for operating expenses is critical for the 2004-05 school year.
I’m not going to go into the nonsense about schools being underfunded, as I’ve already done this before. What I am going to have a field day with is the idea that one can “raise taxes temporarily.” Excuse me a minute while I fall on the floor in hysterics. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Okay, I’m back now. You know, when the Federal Government instituted the first income tax some 80-plus years ago, it was supposed to be temporary. Yeah, that worked out real well, didn’t it? A temporary tax increase is a lot like the Loch Ness Monster: No one’s really sure if it exists, but most folks are willing to bet it doesn’t.
But the Register wants more than just a bump in the school-aid funding:
Boost Iowa's teacher-pay plan as much as possible. Progress has been slow since the 2001 Legislature passed it, but it's made a difference.
Restore the Phase Three fund for professional and curriculum development, which was eliminated by the 2003 Legislature. Nothing is more important in the classroom than energetic, knowledgeable teachers. Training is essential, not a luxury.
So while we’re busting the budget with that, we need even more money for “beautifying” Iowa:
Put new money into the Vision Iowa Program. The state grants, which require a local match, have allowed wonderful new attractions to spring up. The original $225 million is almost gone. Bonding for the same amount would cost the state about $13 million to $14 million a year over 20 years - slightly less than the $15 million a year being spent for the first $225 million because interest rates have dropped slightly, said state Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald. Such investments have a big quality-of-life payoff.
Yep, building new convention centers, parks, and walkways. That’s been so successful at improving Iowa’s economy that we have become an economic dynamo in the last few years. Oh wait…
Next,
Encourage local government mergers with incentives that allow innovation and changes in state law that will ease the consolidation process.
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. Am I amazed that the Register actually made a good proposal? Well, a broken clock is correct twice a day.
But the rest of the time you get:
Make sure the Grow Iowa Values economic-development fund is solid.
Ah yes, more money for the corporate-welfare slush fund. It should be noted that Iowa had an extra $100 million for some of the Register’s education spending boondoggles priorities, money that came from the Federal Government. But, that money had to be put into the Grow Iowa Values Fund. I suspect that the Register would miss the irony of that.
Finally,
Take care of basic human services.
Ah, doesn’t it make you feel so good that the Register thinks we can fund these things ad infinitum? And here’s the concluding paragraph:
There is a middle ground on all these issues if Republicans and Democrats want to find it. Despite any personal animosity and philosophical differences, it is their duty to move the state forward.
Translation: Iowa taxpayers, bend over and grab the ankles. And if you ask very nicely, maybe they’ll let you have a bit of Vaseline.
. . .
INDEPENDENT MINDED
Guess which Presidential candidate Rekha Basu described as “an independent thinker who marches to his own beat and doesn't dissolve under attacks,” and is “most fundamentally independent-minded”? If you guessed Dennis Kucinich, then you know your Rekha quite well.
It just drips with irony. “Independent-minded.” When was the last time you could describe a Basu column in that fashion?
. . .
SPENDING NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM?
The New York Times is quite pleased that the International Monetary Fund gave the Bush Administration a dressing down on the size of the federal deficit. But look at where the Times lays the blame for the deficit (and look where they do not lay the blame):
An economic slowdown and President Bush's huge tax cuts conspired to swing America's federal budget from a surplus of 2.5 percent of gross domestic product in 2000 to a deficit of some 4 percent in 2003.
Gee, wonder why the Times leaves out the runaway spending portion of the problem?
. . .
|
. . .
|
