Even A Know-Nothing Knows Some Things

I'm not shocked by anything Steve King says anymore, because I get that outrageous extreme statements are part of the act and part of the political calculus. In a safe red seat you have to watch your right flank and Steve has no worries in that department.

With King now safely, officially, and finally out of the Senate race, he's back on his career path which someday will mean a cash-in retirement to talk radio or Fox News. His latest statement illustrates that King is speaking to a very distinct niche of conservatives.

Conservatives agree on a lot but there's distinct differences of emphasis. There's money Republicans and Jesus Republicans and Gun Republicans and these days Anarcho-Republicans. King's distinct niche is as an ethnic cleansing culture warrior speaking to Know-Nothing, `Murican Republicans.

King argued that the 1986 immigration bill that Reagan signed into law is estimated to have brought amnesty to three million illegal immigrants.

He said conservative estimates show that, on average, each of these people brought in five others, leading to 15 million more people in the country, most of whom voted for Obama.

"[T]hey have to admit that Ronald Reagan's signature on the '86 amnesty act brought about Barack Obama's election," King concluded on the House floor.

"[I]t's clear to anybody that can do any kind of statistical analysis that Barack Obama wouldn't be President of the United States without Ronald Reagan's 1986 amnesty act."

King is eager to attack "amnesty." He very carefully avoids specifying any solutions to immigration other than "enforce the law." That's because he knows exactly how loudly he can blow the dog whistle for his hidden constituency.

For those unfamiliar with the term, dog-whistle messaging "employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup."

Polling shows a large subset, close to 30% but higher among Republicans, whose preferred immigration "reform" is mass deportation. Like the Know-Nothings of the 1850s or the distinctly northern, Catholic-focused, 1920s version of the Ku Klux Klan, they're hostile to an increasingly multi-cultural America.  They're especially hostile to a multi-lingual America. Don't talk Spanish in front of me in the Wal-Mart line.

They may be Know-Nothings but they're not stupid. I'm sure private conversations happen among the trusted locals, but the concept of political correctness has embedded itself deep enough that even in western Iowa average folks know that they can't speak publicly in favor of the mass deportation of more than 10 million people.There's a natural frustration to that, so they eagerly eat up anything that enforces their world view articulately yet without crossing that invisible line. They know what the implications of "enforce the law" are.

And Steve King's not stupid either. Or crazy. Extreme, sure, but savvy enough to know exactly which buttons to press. And here he's tied it up into a nice package. One alien menace, Hispanics, has elected another alien menace, a liberal African American.

The only real risk King took was blaming Reagan.

What Did We Win?

While state-level Democrats are claiming victory in the long-fought property tax bill, here in Johnson County we're wondering what exactly it was that Democrats got out of the deal.

The massive package of tax credits, rollbacks and reductions includes benefits for residential and commercial property owners, state income-tax payers and low-income workers. It will reduce property taxes statewide by billions of dollars over the next decade, while rebating hundreds of millions more through a new income tax credit and an expansion of the earned income tax credit for the poor.

The earned income credit, long a critical issue for Iowa City senator Joe Bolkcom. looks like the only tangible "progressive" item in the bill, and is dwarfed by the commercial property tax cuts. The deal was bad enough that Bolkcom. along with Coralville's Bob Dvorsky, were two of the six No votes on final passage.

An updated fiscal analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency estimated the total property tax reduction at $3.87 billion statewide over 10 years. The state’s general fund will provide $3.13 billion to local governments to offset that loss, leaving an estimated $741.1 million reduction to be absorbed by cities, counties, school districts and other jurisdictions.

"If you hear anyone say counties and cities will receive a backfill of lost revenue, it is only partially true and will only be partly true if the state always keeps its word," said Supervisor Janelle Rettig, estimating that over the next ten years Johnson County's total annual loss will be $2.1 million and Iowa City $3.3 million. "Cuts in local programming, services, roads will happen even with a partial backfill. Also increases in residential taxes will happen. There was a way to do this thoughtfully and fairly and this isn't it."

It's not the first time over the years that we've seen this move, where the Legislature and governor - usually but not always Branstad - kick the can down the road, specifically a county secondary road.

"They decided to give away local government tax revenue, not their own," said Johnson County supervisor Rod Sullivan. "Now Iowa's cities and counties get to cut services so a bunch more of our money can flow to Bentonville, Arkansas."

As I write, early Thursday morning, the Senate has adjourned for the session. The Republican led House is yet to vote but nearly certain to approve. Meantime, Democratic legislators, especially those seeking higher office, need to be ready for the question: what did we win?

White House Honors Johnson County Recorder

Johnson County Recorder Kim Painter is being honored by the White House Wednesday as one of the country's pioneering LGBT elected officials.

Painter, first elected in 1998, is being named a “Harvey Milk Champion of Change.”  

"This award is a tremendous honor, and I'm deeply gratified," said Painter:

"I've been very fortunate in my political endeavors.  Being elected to serve the people of Johnson County was a great moment in my life, and it occurred because people were willing to look beyond labels and ideology and get to know me as a human being.  They felt I could provide strong service to the county, and I've tried to do that.  This award, having the name of Harvey Milk associated with it, is a bit daunting for me to grasp.  But I'm thrilled, and will carry it close to my heart."

While she's excited by the honor, Painter says she won't be able to attend the White House event in person. 

Painter noted that while she was the first out person elected in Iowa as a non-incumbent, other officials before her came out while already in office. "First and foremost in my mind is Bill Crews, who was mayor of Melbourne, Iowa, and came out in 1993. He was on the receiving end of some pretty rough invective at that time, as I recall, along with lots of support."

The White House release pretty much says the rest:  

White House Highlights Kim Painter as a
“Harvey Milk Champion of Change”

WASHINGTON, DC – On Wednesday, May 22nd, the White House will honor Kim Painter as one of ten openly LGBT elected or appointed officials who are “Harvey Milk Champions of Change.”  The event falls on Harvey Milk’s birthday and will recognize these individuals for their commitment to equality and public service.

“When President Obama posthumously awarded Harvey Milk the Medal of Freedom in 2009, he praised his leadership and courage in running for office.  Today, we honor Harvey Milk’s legacy in these ten outstanding public servants, who will surely inspire the next generation of public servants,” said Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to the President.

The Champions of Change program was created as an opportunity for the White house to feature groups of Americans – individuals, businesses and organizations – who are doing extraordinary things to empower and inspire members of their communities.

To watch this event live, visit www.whitehouse.gov/live at 3:00 pm ET on Wednesday, May 22nd.  To learn more about the White House Champions of Change program and nominate a Champion, visit www.whitehouse.gov/champions.

Kim Painter
Johnson County Recorder
Iowa City, IA

Kim Painter serves as Johnson County Recorder in Iowa City, Iowa.  In 1998, she became the first openly gay person to win election to public office in Iowa.  In 2007, she was selected by peers to serve as president of the Iowa State Association of Counties.  She has also chaired Iowa’s Commission on the Status of Women.  She and spouse Jessica Kardon have been together for 17 years. They married in Iowa in 2009.

Data as Destiny Part 1 and 2

There's enough grad student dropout in me to appreciate a good data set when I see one, and today I have two that explain a few things about politics national and Iowan.

One of my more vivid grad school memories was seeing one of my professors put down a nationally known scholar visiting Iowa for a guest lecture as a "popularizer," meaning the guest had an ability to condense a dissertation into a soundbite and get on TV, thus jeopardizing academic elitism and exclusivity. The University of Virginia's Larry Sabato is definitely a popularizer, but I don't consider that a bad thing.

Sabato looks at census data this week to study each state's "nativity rate."



No, not that Nativity. Definitely not that Nativity.

Sabato's "nativity rate" is the percentage of a state's residents born in the state.

His main fascination with the data is that his own Virginia, over the last century,has taken a huge drop from one of the most "native" states, over 90% in 1910, to one of the least at just under 50. Which explains a lot about the evolution of Virginia from a state that, at the height of the civil rights era and the old Byrd machine, closed its public schools - ALL public schools - for a year rather than integrate, into a state that twice voted for Barack Obama.

However, Sabato finds:

...a weak negative correlation (R = -.235) between a state’s nativity percentage and the percentage of the vote Obama received in the 50 states plus Washington, D.C. The analysis also tells us that nativity rates explain very little of the variation in Obama’s performance from state to state. In other words, a state with a low percentage of native-born residents was not clearly more likely to support the president’s reelection bid.

Me, I find this data set interesting as a non-native Iowan, born in the far off exotic land of Wisconsin. The top nativist state looks to me to be either 1) the racially polarized, lagging behind dregs of the deep South and Appalachia, with post-Katrina Louisiana always a demographic outlier; and 2) places that get very cold in the winter.

But what does it mean politically? There's very red places and very blue places on both ends. What I'm seeing is stability and strong parties in the most nativist states, and more political volatility in the states with the most in-migration. Just anecdotally - I dropped out of grad school before I got regression analysis tattooed on my brain, but then more of you are reading this post than would have ever read my dissertation - the states with the most newcomers are more likely to have swung one way or another recently. You'd likely a higher percentage of independents, or something like a hot primary or an out of nowhere winner. You even see that in high-growth precincts in a very nativist state like Iowa.

The data is 20 years old, but it would be interesting to layer this, or the 1990 equivalent, against Ross Perot's percentages. He did very well in those rootless places.

What I see in the more nativist states is strong party structures, longer incumbency, institutional stability. There's exceptions on both ends, of course.

The other interesting data set comes to us via Brad Plumer at the Washington Post. Filipe R. Campante of Harvard Kennedy School and Quoc-Anh Do of Singapore Management University find that “isolated capital cities are robustly associated with greater levels of corruption.”

That is, if your state capital is your largest city, you're less likely to see corruption than if the center of government is a downstate backwater.

Who tops the charts? Springfield, Illinois, of course, where they had to build a new wing of the state prison just to house ex-governors.

"The authors found that state capitals located in remote areas tend to receive less newspaper and media coverage. What’s more, voter knowledge about the goings-on in these isolated statehouses tends to be lower. And, as a result, voter turnout for state elections tends to be depressed."

Iowa, home of the $3 gift law, is in the clear here with our largest city as the state capital. However, the study just looks at 1976 to 2002. Illinois is still safe, sending two more governors to prison. But Kent Sorenson's presidential campaign shenanigans may move Iowa a notch or so.

Labor on Etheredge's Agenda

Looks like Johnson County is back to square one on the justice center, or if that's a dirty word the jail and courthouse. Most of the ink in the wake of Tuesday's meeting focused on the masterplan offered by the New Guy, Republican supervisor John Etheredge, but another part of his agenda, a cheap shot at organized labor, was overlooked.

Etheredge got elected in March basically to say NO, and he has: to the Newport Road zoning, marriage equality, and Earth Day. If he had kept his remarks short and sweet to "I think we need to build at the county farm, not downtown," he would have been OK. There are a fair of people arguing for a justice center, or at least a jail, at the county farm location. Though it's worth noting that the downtown justice center got roughly 55% of the vote twice, while the jail at county farm plan drew barely a third of the vote in 2000. And as Terrence Neuzil quickly noted, a post-election survey in 2001 showed that the location was a leading reason for the loss.

(Hint: If you build a jail other than where a jail is now, there will be people who do not now live near a jail who do not want to live near a jail. And in this case, those people have very big houses and will spend a lot of money on a No campaign. At least that's what happened in 2000.)

But Etheredge, possibly on the fly, rolled that out into a grand long-range vision in which he would sell off all the county's mid-town holdings, including the new HHS Building, and move all county operations to the county farm area. The old courthouse would become a museum run by... someone. (I had the best plan for that.)

County Attorney Janet Lyness did a remarkably polite, diplomatic job informing Etheredge that 1) the county had been through the County Campus discussion circa 2005 and 2) decided to create one, by closing the old Human Services and Health buildings and building the new HHS facility in 2008 across the street from the Administration Building in mid-town Iowa City.

But Etheredge's proposal to sell off a five year old building and a newly remodeled Admin Building aren't the biggest thing wrong with his agenda. I may be coming to this party a day late but I got something everyone else missed. Just to remind folks he's a Republican, he attacked organized labor and buying local.

Here's the audio; discussion starts 5:15 into this clip.

Harney: Anyone that's talked to the unions right now are saying that they are full, they don't have room for any more capacity right now for jobs. They are very busy, there's a lot of construction going on. And that's going to continue with $1 billion of work the University's proposing out there, that's going to continue to happen. Labor's going to be hard to come by no matter what we do. And the other thing I wanted to mention was the modular units. I went through that years ago when they had put those out around the courthouse. They had heating problems, they had water problems, they had all sorts of things out there. Unless you make something nearly permanent, you're not going to have something that's going to be real workable for those units when they're doing...

Etheredge: Well that's what I say, they would definitely be temporary. They're not designed to be there for decades. When you take a look at labor costs, I mean... do we have to go, really, do we have to use unions for everything? Because, I mean to me, that really opens it up. If you don't have to use unions for everything, you can use other businesses who, you know what, put in a lower  bid but the same quality. Again, we'd have to... with every building that goes up you have to have somebody out there to ensure quality. Which...

Sullivan: Well, we will take the lowest bid. I mean, that's... we did that over there (HHS Building) and frankly...

There were a lot of problems and delays that came up in the construction of HHS by low-bidder Tricon Construction of Dubuque, and there were quality issues even after the building opened. Back to the Board already in progress:

Etheredge: ...when he said he talked to the unions, they're full up, you know...

Harney: I'm not saying we'd only use union help. There's non-union help that's busy too, they're doing...

Etheredge: What I'm saying is, we wouldn't necessarily have to use someone who's located in Johnson County because if they're a higher bid, they're a higher bid. I've talked with a number of people, a number of contractors and commercial and industrial builders and they said there are people from even other states that are putting in way lower bids even though they'd have to move a lot of stuff here. Putting in way lower bids than the current in-state operations are. They said it was much greater than 10%. It's because they want the work. To me it's an optimal time to find some of those businesses that, you know, want the work. I see, you know, the economy, I'm forever optimistic, I see it turning around and really increasing and really getting back to what Americans like to do best and that is work.

A bit later, Etheredge brings up another conservative buzzword (start at 7:23)

Etheredge: When I was looking at some of the jail stuff, and I'm going to have to maybe ask Lonny about some of this because he knows a little bit more about it. But I saw there were a few places in Florida and throughout the country that actually taken their jail and essentially the whole operations, internal operations and essentially - you have sheriffs but you drop the prisoners off there and everything else is just privately run.

Pulkrabek: Yeah, the Code of Iowa says that the sheriff will and shall be responsible for taking care of the inmates. And then it also says that the Board of Supervisors shall fund that.

Etheredge: So I just was...

Rettig: So it prohibits outsourcing?

Pulkrabek: It prohibits privatization. 

Worth noting: Those internal jail jobs Etheredge wants to privatize are also union jobs.

There Is No Party

A question I often get: "Why doesn't The Party DO" such and such. Usually it's in the context of "Why doesn't The Party make such and such elected official(s) act in a certain way." Second most common: "How can I get The Party to stop calling me at dinner time?"

Here's the thing about the American system: There is no such thing as THЗ PAЯTУ in the monolithic, Soviet sense. The definition of "the party" depends on the context.

There is a county party and a state party and a congressional district party and a Senate congressional campaign committee and a House congressional campaign committee and a state legislative campaign fund. Not to mention the candidates: local and state and federal all the way up to presidential. (And if you want to stop getting phone calls you have to telll ALL of them... and political groups are exempt from the national Do Not Call laws because, well, who wrote the law?)

The closest thing to The Party, a national convention, is just once every four years and really just for a couple narrow and frankly antiquated purposes; the last time we went into a national convention with any legitimate doubt as to who would be nominated was the `76 Republican convention.

The issue came up in a now-deleted Facebook thread: Will "The Democratic Party" support Candidate X, described charitably as "outside the party mainstream," if she's nominated? Can't The Party DO something? (Not naming any names but her initials are Swati Dandekar.)

Nomination politics are the broadest definition of "the party" we have. The party is anyone who chooses to vote in the primary. In an open primary state (which Iowa de facto is) that includes a certain number of crossover Republicans, independents, Greens, Libertarians, Whigs, Know Nothings, Bull Moosers and members of the Silly Party. The other levels of The Party are charged with electing the primary winner, but can't really control that process.

The ultimate job of a party is to elect its candidates. To a certain extent, a person who buys into a political process buys into the outcome. That's why it's so controversial for party activists to reject a primary nominee to openly support a different candidate. There's even rules against it at some levels.

Ironically, one of the few times I've seen a political party scuttle its own nominee was in Swati Dandekar's first race in 2002. Her opponent was caught sending emails with ugly racial undertones, and the Iowa GOP pulled the plug. Dandekar deserves to be bashed for a lot of things, but her heritage isn't one of those things.

Sure, a lot of people quietly leave a line blank on a ballot or silently vote for someone else. But some folks aren't satisfied with that. That's why some people are better suited to help individual candidates or for issue activism.

But with the white Southern realignment to the Republicans now complete, there are no more truly conservative Democrats or truly liberal Republicans. The bluest blue dog Democrat is more progressive than the RINOest Republican.


As for me, the Democratic Party isn't perfect. The social movements of the 60s dragged us kicking and screaming sometimes. But with that important caveat, the Democratic Party has been the most substantive force for progressive change in America for the last 80 years, and that's why I put my efforts into a party. Whatever a party is.

Opening the Hatch in Johnson County

In a night dominated by old stories of lost tools of the trade like walking decks and index cards, Senator Jack Hatch came the closest to making actual news Saturday night at the Johnson County Democrats Hall of Fame dinner.

Hatch acknowledged that recently leaked news that he'd formed an exploratory committee for governor, and he pledges to stand on principle. "For the first time in 8 years, we'll have a governor who won't make decisions based on polls," he said, in an implied shot at Chet Culver. "Democrats win when we vote with our heart."

Health care, now stalled in the legislature, has been Hatch's signature issue. "Iowa has highest percentage of children with health insurance in the country," but calling the Republican proposal "the most cynical legislation I've ever seen. It would cost more money and provide less care."

"We learned from 2010 that we can't sit on our hands and be disaffected," Congressman Dave Loebsack told the crowd. "We can't afford it. Our future is at stake. When I was a political science professor I used to hate when politicians said things like 'our future is at stake,' but this time it's really true."

Also on hand were Iowa Democratic Party chair Tyler Olson and his predecessor, Sue Dvorsky, who spoke on behalf of an absent Bruce Braley.

"This state is not going to just automatically replace Tom Harkin with Bruce Braley," Dvorsky said in one of her trademarked motivational speeches. "Bruce will need an effort out of here beyond what we now expect. It'll be our job to start right now."

While the early speakers looked forward, most of the evening was spent looking back by the night's lifetime achievement award winners. Sadly, one was absent; disability advocate Lori Bears died in March, far sooner than expected at age 50. "I don't think there was a more dogged activist for her cause than Lori Bears," said Loebsack.

The honorees were all female and appropriately for Mother's Day weekend, the theme helped tie the night together.

At long-ago JCDems fall barbecues, "the women were clearing the tables and the guys were out clearing out the kegs," said Anita Sehr.  Anita, who with her late husband Don, a longtime county supervisor, hosted countless Sharon Center caucuses in their home, told tales of the Carter, Glenn, Gore, and Bill Clinton campaigns.

"I'm a product of a broken home... politically," said Sehr. "My mother was a Democrat and my father was a Republican. Dad always said 'know something about the person before you vote.' Mom, not so much."

The honor to Jocye Carman also tacitly acknowledged a deceased spouse, law professor David Baldus. Carman is "a quiet progressive voice who never sought the limelight," said Sue Dvorsky, and that modestly was reflected in the speech.

Carman was one of several speakers who mentioned the unsuccessful 1980 Iowa ERA campaign. "In this community, it is the women who make things happen," she said. The ERA also fell short in 1992; a much abbreviated version that simply added the words "and women" passed in 1998.

Maureen Donnelly was one of the first people I met when I moved to town in 1990 and has been an omnipresence at campaign headquarters to the present day. Donnelly cut her teen in Connecticut town hall politics: "Where I grew up IrishCatholicDemocrat is one word." After moving to Iowa she found that the caucuses worked a lot like those town meetings. By coincidence Saturday was Maureen's birthday so we all sang.

"The Johnson County Democrats got me out of the laboratory and gave me many other experiences in life," said honoree Rebecca Reiter, who served as party finance chair for many years among other roles. "Central committee meetings can be a surreal experience. I remember a long discussion of the rights of lobsters," she said, though she did not remember how the lobsters came out in the debate.

Several of the honorees expressed a similar sentiment summed up by Donnelly: "Moving to Johnson County was the best thing that ever happened to me."

And all urged activists to keep working. "Time flies whether you're having fun or not!" said Sehr. "So have fun, get involved, you'll be really pleased with yourself if you can."

Rand Paul Hints At 2016

Senator Rand Paul offered just a hint, but the 2016 buzz was in the air at a Republican breakfast this morning in North Liberty.

"You want people who represent what you stand for," said the Kentucky Senator, "but also can talk to people who don't understand yet." The "here I am" went unspoken.

"Deb (county GOP chair Thornton) said I can speak as long as I want," Paul began, "and I can speak quite a long time," alluding to the 13 hour filibuster he gave in March against drone strikes. He managed to keep the talk to about 45 minutes including a few audience questions.

Senator Paul, son of former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a 2008 and 2012 presidential candidate, seemed more linear than his father, with fewer tangents into gold standard types of issues. The senator focused on foreign aid and tax policy in a very casual speech, wearing jeans and boots and leaning against the side of the podium.

"We should not give one penny more to nations that are burning our flag," he said to applause from the crowd of about 100. "It's pitiful to pay people to be our friends." However, Paul emphasized US-Israeli friendship, an issue he's been criticized in the past.

On tax policy, Paul favors a 17% flat income tax rate.  "We should not be for revenue neutral tax reform, we should be for cutting taxes," offering praise for Calvin Coolidge's policies. "It is not inherently unfair" for millionaires and their secretaries to pay the same percentage rates.

However, Paul did offer some criticism or large corporations, particularly the auto bailout, arguing that big business shouldn't get more help than small business.

"I may not agree with everything (Paul) says," said county supervisor John Etheredge in an introductory speech, " but he has some great core principles. When you run as a Republican there are some core principles associated with that." Those principles weren't elaborated much in his speech but seemed tacitly understood by the crowd; Etheredge did note as he began that he'd been shooting assault rifles with some military friends last night.

Etheredge, a local GOP hero after breaking the Democratic Party's 50 year monopoly on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors in a March special election win, was the only local elected official on hand. Rep. Bobby Kaufmann and Sen. Sandy Greiner had personal commitments. The event, piggybacked on last night's state party Lincoln Dinner in Cedar Rapids, was put together on relatively short notice.

Senator Paul working the crowd before the speech.

The four audience questions focused on marriage, taxes, Benghazi, and Audit The Fed (a signature issue of Paul's father).

"I believe in traditional marriage," said Paul, who said the issue should be left to the states. But he cautioned the questioner, who by implication seemed to be against marriage equality, "if you leave it to a national referendum you're probably going to lose."

"It's troubling to me that when they asked for help" in Benghazi, "somewhere up the chain they said no,"Paul said of the GOP's latest bugaboo issue.

Bob Anderson, state central committee member and immediate past chair of the county party, hinted at the divisions between old guard mainline Republicans (like himself) and the "liberty" faction that supported Paul's father in 2012 and took over much of the state party machinery. "You set a good example for unity," he told the senator, who met with his primary rival for breakfast immediately after his 2010 nomination.

A mix of "regulars" and "Liberty" folks were present this morning. I looked like the only Democratic mole, but I spotted Steve Sherman, who ran against Sally Stutsman for the state house last fall, and Christopher Peters, who challenged Bob Dvorsky as a Libertarian in 2010.

In general, the local activists seemed ready for the 2016 cycle to begin. "A lot of people ask, does it ever end?" said party activist Jason Glass of the long pre-caucus season. "But why does it have to?"

In strictly local stuff, county chair Thornton claimed some credit for Tuesday's defeat of the justice center. "In two votes in a row we've defeated the cathedral, Cadillac jail," she said of the issue. Republicans donated to the NO campaign and the Democratic Party endorsed yes, but activists from both parties were involved in both campaigns.

The Republican-led petition drive for a special election on a districting system for the Board of Supervisors went unmentioned, either from the podium or in any chatter I heard, and no petitions were seen. Has this issue slipped off the priority list?