Principles, pledges and posturing

As the Iowa Legislature starts another week of the 2011 session, it makes you wonder how much actual negotiating is going on. You'd think coming to agreement on each of the bills that still need to be passed and signed into law would be the top priority for the Republicans, Democrats and the governor. Instead, people are starting to wonder about  a shutdown and noting that Branstad was governor during the last time that was threatened, in 1992. The Legislature has piled up quite a stack of unresolved budget and spending bills, along with other contentious issues from abortion to secretly videotaping livestock operations. So, maybe the small groups of House and Senate leaders left at the Legislature would spend full days every day talking about what they need in these bills to reach that point and adjourn. Instead, everyone is still repeating their principles and pledges --- along with trashing their opponents. Branstad has to have two-year budgets and House Speaker Kraig Paulsen says they're just trying to reduce government costs. To Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal all their talk is just a "gut punch to the middle class." Everything is so stalled that lawmakers may only accomplish what they absolutely have to --- approving a budget. Is it all just posturing for the base with an eye on politics? There certainly are differences between the various parties to these negotiations and they're important. They indicate divergent philosophies that really do matter and can shape state government. But, again, politics is truely about compromise and real leadership means figuring out how to bridge those gaps. In the process, everyone has to give up something. That's what is going to allow the Legislature to adjourn.

A compromising position

They've all got campaign promises and competing ideals to uphold, but it's time. Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature and Gov. Terry Branstad need to put it all aside and do one of the most vile things a politician can do: compromise.  Spending bills have been slow to come to the governor since each house of the Legislature is  controlled by a different party with competing aims and interests. When the Democrats and Republicans did figure out how to compromise, Branstad vetoed all or part of the bills. He's got his own set of campaign promises and ideals that cannot be broken! The period where lawmakers receive daily expense payments, or per diem, ended Friday. That is typically tied to the ajournment date, but nobody's sure how soon it will happen with so many budget and spending bills  yet to be approved and signed. Closed door meetings of the Legislature's leadership are now under way. But freshmen Republicans, with their tea party sympathies, may be pushing their leaders to positions the Democrats can't accept. What the two sides do come up with could conflict with Branstad's promises of a two-year budget and a package of tax reforms that he suggests will spur employment growth in Iowa (which is related to his pledge to create 200,000 jobs). We'll see how much impact reality has on those promises and ideals.

Who will be left standing?

Behind their carefully-worded statements, Iowa's five congressmen still want to hold onto their seats. But --- as I've imagined current 4th Congressional District Rep. Tom Latham thinking --- "in which district?" Well, Iowa is in the midst of its once-a-decade redistricting plan and it's losing one of districts, so someone's got to go. It's a political equivalent of musical chairs. The number of seats each state gets in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on population and Iowa's growth has been slower than other growing states. The Legislative Services Agency plan throws Republicans Steve King, currently representing the 5th District, and Latham into a new 4th District. It also throws Democrats Dave Loebsack, currently representing the 2nd District, and Bruce Braley, representing the 1st District, into a new 1st District. No incumbent lives in the new 2nd District, but much of it is the same chunk of southeastern Iowa that Loebsack now represents. Democrat Leonard Boswell --- the only incumbent not paired up --- remains in a reconstituted 3rd District that swallows the southwestern corner of Iowa that King now represents. King's supporters in that area are not happy about this. The official statements released by each congressman except Latham seem to stake out one of the new districts. Latham lives at the edge of his new district and is very close to the three others, all of which include some territory he now represents. King has stated he will be on the ballot, but also suggested he'd like to avoid a matchup with Latham. Might he challenge one of his three Democratic colleagues? Of course, more than one of the current representatives may not survive after the new congressional districts are put in place. For example, there's been a lot of speculation the Christie Vilsack, wife of the former governor and current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, may want one of the seats. Since the Vilsacks lived in the new 2nd District and there's no incumbent there now, that may be a good guess. Another guess is that she may based herself out of the Des Moines area and run in the new 3rd District. Or she may not run. And redrawing the districts may even open up opportunities for new challengers or past electoral opponents. When challenged, incumbents don't always win (but it's a good bet). The Iowa Legislature --- which is also affected by the plan --- can choose to accept or reject the plan. The earliest either house will vote is April 13. Many have speculated that the Legislature will approve the plan. If not, the LSA draws up a new plan.

Oh, what a relief it is

Let's face it. Some bills before the Iowa Legislature stink. So it's kind of a relief when they're flushed away and nobody has to think about what to do with this awful legislation anymore. Lawmakers just finished "Funnel Week," which eliminated a long list of bills from consideration. The Funnel is the deadline for most legislation to clear at least one House or Senate committee. Among those that didn't make it are a bunch purely designed to push a political agenda, largely proposed by Republicans in the House. For example, a measure to ban most abortions. If it became law, the legislation would have been immediately challenged. Plenty of states have placed restrictions on abortion. But opponents would like to make a broad challenge to abortion with the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized it. An Iowa Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage is the reason for another bill which would have changed the process of choosing judges in Iowa. Other bills would have allowed businesses to deny services to people due to religious beliefs, required drug testing for welfare recipients and eliminated the requirement to get a permit for carrying a handgun. The first two would have been laws that promoted hate and fear, writing discrimination into our legal code. The handgun proposal is part of a continuing push by the gun lobby. Proponents suggest the only way to understand the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to erase every regulation and restriction related to gun ownership. They have been successful with a law that went into effect taking away a sheriff's discretion in approving gun permits. I don't buy the argument that requiring a permit to carry a handgun is in any way infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Gun advocates gone wild

Gun owners are asserting their rights in Iowa this year with a spate of legislation that would allow them to own and carry weapons with the least amount of restriction possible. On Jan. 1, a law went into effect that took away county sheriffs' discretion to deny an applicant's permit to carry a concealed gun. Essentially, it creates a uniform standard across the state. It also means law enforcement no longer has a say in what type of gun training is an acceptable prerequisite to receiving a permit. Among the acceptable, apparently, are  online "gun training" courses. The bill was passed by the Legislature last session and signed by former Gov. Chet Culver. For gun rights advocates, that victory seems to have set the tone for the current legislative session. Most prominently, the stand-your-ground bill is going through the Iowa House. Some opponents have dubbed this "House File 007, license to kill." It expands peoples' ability to defend themselves with a gun anywhere they have the legal right to be. Currently, that applies only to a person's home and workplace. Critics have pointed out this changes the expectation that someone should try to descalate a situation --- or just run away --- before turning to deadly force. Practically, what that means is prosecutors have less ability to charge those who shoot someone. Not surprisingly, in at least one state where a similar law has been passed, "justifiable homicides" have risen from a small number to more than 40 each year. The Des Moines Register reports that has been the case in Florida since its law went into effect in 2005. Sounds more lawless than lawful to me. That fact highlights an important point: Gun advocates' legislative push is really more about their rights than anybody's safety.