Earlier this week my colleagues in the Iowa House successfully defeated the prevailing wage price fixing legislation after nearly 70 hours of weekend voting shenanigans ensued and Iowans from every community in the state spoke out in strong opposition. This bill, like many other anti-job union boss bills, would cripple Iowa employers and soak property taxpayers with even higher taxes. Speaking to reporters and admitting this legislative defeat was a damaging blow to the union boss agenda, the Speaker of the House spoke of Governor Culver’s involvement in trying to push this bill saying, “He did give 100 percent on this one.”
While the governor was willing to give 100 percent to an effort backed by some of his biggest special interest campaign donors that would cripple Iowa’s employers and businesses, raise property taxes and harm Iowa jobs, I pledge to continue to give 100 percent toward the priorities that Iowans care about like spurring economic growth and job creation, protecting Iowa’s rural schools, keeping government limited and living within its means, making health care more affordable and defending the personal freedoms of Iowans so they can flourish and be prosperous in our communities. Iowans should know that during these challenging economic times, I will continue to be the voice of fiscal responsibility and good government and act with disciplined leadership and fiscal integrity.
While the House was able to defeat the price fixing prevailing wage legislation this week, the governor and his party members in the Legislature are still strongly supportive of it and may try again yet this session. The doctor shopping legislation is still alive in the Senate and could be debated at any time. This bill, if enacted, will deeply diminish the quality of health care for Iowa workers while drastically increasing workers compensation insurance premiums for employers and businesses. In all, this bill will mean fewer jobs for Iowans at a time when there are already approximately 80,000 Iowans out of work.
Governor Culver and his legislative counterparts could also push through their forced unionization bill which will allow union bosses to garnish the wages of Iowa workers in order to pay for lobbyists and further expand the union agenda. Iowa workers and families will not only lose freedom, they will lose hundreds of dollars that could otherwise go towards stimulating the economy through the buying of groceries, the fueling up of the family vehicle, the paying of heating bills or the purchasing of necessary medications. They are also intent on bringing forward a collective bargaining bill that will gut the authority of local governments like school boards, city councils and county boards of supervisors while at the same time adding millions of dollars of new property taxes onto already heavily burdened property owners.
The governor and his legislative counterparts in the House and Senate also made it crystal clear that they are very interested in eliminating federal deductibility which would essentially mean that Iowans will be taxed twice. As it stands now, Iowans are able to deduct their federal tax liability from their state tax liability in order to greatly reduce their overall state income tax burden. They want to eliminate this deduction so taxpayers have to pay more in state income taxes and therefore have more money to spend on growing government and paying for more pork projects. Estimates suggest it could cost taxpayers as much as $700 million dollars in additional taxes paid to state government. Eliminating this will put an even greater strain on lower-income and middle-income taxpayers and take money out of the pocketbooks Iowans who would otherwise use those hard earned dollars to stimulate their local economies through the purchase of daily necessities.
Since the state budget is already facing hundreds of millions in self inflicted budget deficits, eliminating federal deductibility and therefore raising taxes on Iowa families could be a way for the governor and his party legislative members to fill the gaping budgetary hole they’ve created after two years of ineffectual fiscal stewardship. However, Governor Culver, during his annual Condition of the State address, made it clear that he would not raise taxes to balance the state’s budget. If they were to follow through with his plan, Governor Culver would be breaking a vow he made to three million Iowans just weeks ago.
Beyond the upcoming budget battles, the possibility of a major tax increase as a result of the elimination of federal deductibility, and the looming anti-job union boss labor bills, there is also a proposal that has moved out of committee that would shrink Iowa’s role in future presidential elections to near irrelevancy. This proposal pushed by the majority party would mean that our state would no longer award our electoral votes solely based on who wins the popular vote in Iowa but instead on who wins the national popular vote. Under this proposal, a candidate could lose in Iowa but win the national popular vote and still get Iowa’s electoral votes. Iowa will be reduced to flyover country as candidates will instead campaign in more heavily populated metropolitan areas. As a result, our voters will be ignored and our issues will be swept aside.
Though times may be difficult now, I am confident and optimistic that Iowa can rebound better than ever because I know we have the best educated, hardest working and most dynamic workforce found anywhere. If we stick to the principles and traditions that has made this state a destination for millions to happily call home, I am convinced that our brightest days will be yet to come.
As always, I welcome hearing from my constituents and can be reached by phone at 515-281-3560 or by e-mail at paul.mckinley@legis.state.ia.us
Paul McKinley
Iowa Senator
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Posted by: mvymvy | February 27, 2009 at 07:30 PM
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 23 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: mvymvy | February 27, 2009 at 07:31 PM
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.
Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were to be ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that will matter in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There are only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Posted by: mvymvy | February 27, 2009 at 07:31 PM
75% OF IOWA VOTERS FAVOR A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT
A survey of 800 Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. The question was "How do you think we should elect the President when we vote in the November general election: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.
By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.
By race, support was 75% among whites (representing 93% of respondents), 65% among African Americans (representing 2% of respondents), 86% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 58% among others (representing 4% of respondents).
The survey was conducted on February 17-18, 2009, by Public Policy Polling.
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: mvymvy | February 27, 2009 at 07:32 PM
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
Posted by: mvymvy | February 27, 2009 at 07:33 PM
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Under a national popular vote, every vote is equally important politically. There is nothing special about a vote cast in a big city. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties know that they must seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the state in order to win the state. A vote cast in a big city is no more valuable than a vote cast in a small town or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate won 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
Posted by: mvymvy | February 27, 2009 at 07:33 PM