GOP Gets tough on Special Interest Tax Credits

The US Senate voted Tuesday NOT to repeal a $6 billion tax credit for Ethanol. The bill’s chief sponsor Senator Coburn (R-OK) argued that despite their pledge to not raise taxes, the GOP must stop tolerating wasteful giveaways through the IRS Tax Code. Senator McCain (R-AZ) chimed in stating “Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion…It’s my opinion that it’s a disgraceful subsidy that is unwarranted and a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

For those of you who are keeping score 34 of the 47 Republicans in the Senate voted to repeal this tax credit, despite an ATR pledge by 40 of them to never increase taxes. (Lets be fair, ATR did advise them that so long as they cut another tax to make up for increasing taxes by repealing this credit, they would not be breaking the pledge.)  The credit in question was an earmark granting a $6 billion dollar available tax credit for gasoline producers who blend ethanol into their fuels. This blender’s credit amounts to 1 tenth of 1 percent of the requested Federal Budget for fiscal year 2012 and is in fact not a subsidy for ethanol producers, or corn farmers, but a fuel subsidy for the oil companies who blend and sell gasohol.

Am I the only person who thinks this kind of political pandering is disgusting? Senator Van Hollen (D-MD) is quoted as saying “A realistic conversation about deficit reduction must include both cuts and revenues, and Senator Coburn’s amendment to eliminate $6 billion in tax earmarks for ethanol is an important part of this discussion,” and feels Senator Coburn’s “willingness to cut special-interest tax breaks for the purpose of deficit reduction is encouraging.”

Now, I am all for cutting special-interest tax breaks, but let’s get real, one tenth of one percent is a small drop in the ocean of red ink that is 2012 deficit spending. How about cutting something real like the $121 billion mandatory spending in the USDA budget. (%3.2) Or what about cutting some of the $575 billion being spent by the DOD this year EXCLUDING War Funding for Afghanistan and Iraq. (%15.4) Maybe we could look at cutting the $53 billion dollars being requested for foreign aid this year. (%1.4)

But the Republicans are the only ones pandering. The Democrats continually call for the elimination of tax breaks for Big Oil but they voted to keep this bill on the table instead of bringing the actual tax cut up for a vote. I am sick of reading about “earmarks” and “tax credits,” “deficit spending” and “fiscal responsibility.” Let’s see some real action please!?!

Republican Opportunities Missed

As most of you are by now aware, those of us that write for Liberty Line are staunch advocates of smaller more limited government. Because of this we predominantly fall toward the Republican Party on most issues. Of the two major political parties in our nation our views more closely align with the principles of the Republican Party. However far too often there comes a time when the GOP leaves us bewildered and amazed. In this case it is Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley that leaves us scratching our heads. Senator McKinley has repeatedly stated that he believes in small government. That he believes the government of the State of Iowa has grown far too cumbersome to operate efficiently and effectively. However, yesterday the Senator missed a prime opportunity to point out the results of a government that has grown beyond a manageable level.

Yesterday Des Moines Register reporter Jason Clayworth broke a story that exposed the fact that a state agency has declined to enforce sixteen laws duly passed by the general assembly of the State of Iowa. Some of the laws that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has declined to enforce have been on the books for up to twenty years. I do not want to completely rehash the story, but I will state that I was extremely disappointed in both State Senators quoted in the article. I know that I should not expect any better out of Senator Dennis Black of Jasper County, but I must admit that I was very disappointed when Senator McKinley simply expanded upon the comments made by Senator Black.

Simply stated Senator Black claimed that any state agency that did not enforce the laws passed by the Iowa General Assembly was engaging in illegal activity. While I agree with this sentiment I see the problem from a different perspective. Where Senator Black sees inaction, I see a government so overgrown and bloated that it borders upon being ludicrously ineffective. His solution to the problem is to simply reorganize the bloated beast of government where I see the solution would be to pare the bureaucracy down to a more manageable size by eliminating any unneeded and unnecessary regulations and rules. I have no doubt that I would not be able to convince Senator Black to see things from my point of view, but Senator McKinley on the other hand claims to want to shrink the size of government.

Senator McKinley echoed Senator Black’s comments in regards to the need to reorganize the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. McKinley’s chief argument was that the government of the State of Iowa was not being run properly. However nowhere in Senator McKinley’s argument was there reference made to the idea of alleviating the problem by eliminating unnecessary legislation and regulations. He did not once comment on the idea that a bloated bureaucracy could be the culprit in this instance. Instead he decided that he would rather simply manage the agency in a different fashion.

I really hate to have to critique Republicans. As I stated above, Republicans are supposed to be on our side. However, when Republican leadership makes statements and comments like those made by Senator McKinley one really has to wonder what they are thinking. It forces us to question their dedication to smaller government. And it is actions like those undertaken by Senator McKinley in this instance that has put the Republican Party in the position it is in today. I can only hope that Senator McKinley will learn from the constructive criticism in the wake of this event so that he won’t make the same mistake twice.

Branstad Contradicts Himself on Gas Tax

The month of July seems to be a never ending comedy of errors for Republican Gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad. First it was Branstad’s failure to speak out on the endorsement of Governor Chet Culver by Planned Parenthood, the pro-infanticide organization. Then it was his Lieutenant Governor nominee Kim Reynolds assertion that she would be open to government recognized civil unions. The Branstad campaigns failure to meaningfully reach out to supporters of Branstad’s chief opponent Bob Vander Plaats has the potential to leave egg on the GOP nominee’s face come November. And now Branstad has contradicted earlier statements that he had made in regard to the possibility of an increase in the Iowa gas tax.

According to Rod Boshart of the Sioux City Journal, former Governor Branstad has articulated that he was indeed open to an increase in the gas tax at some point in the future.  This is directly contradictory to the comments that he had made to O. Kay Henderson back in November of 2009. In that interview former Governor Branstad remarked that he would not be supportive of an increase in the state’s gas tax. In that interview Branstad asserted that instead of increasing the gas tax he would look at finding places within the bureaucracy to increase efficiency. For some reason it seems that Branstad has changed his tune on this issue. According to the Sioux City Journal article Branstad rationalizes this increase with the assertion that it is not a tax, but that it is a user fee.

The thing that I find so troubling is the ease with which Branstad contradicts himself. As I pointed out at one point he was opposed to increasing the gas tax, but now is somewhat supportive of it. This causes me to wonder what issue he will next backtrack on. Will he change his position on reducing the corporate income tax? Will he reconsider his pledge to shrink the size of the state government?

Another question that has to be asked is how many Republicans will take a second look at former Governor Branstad and find him wanting? How many current supporters will this drive away from his campaign? Surely this contradiction will diminish his credibility on many of the issues that he has made a centerpiece of his campaign.

Gubernatorial Option Number 1: Eric Cooper-Libertarian Party

Saturday I raised the question of whether Republican Gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad truly wants to win the support of those that cast their ballots in favor of Bob Vander Plaats in the Republican primary on June 8^th. He claims to want their support but seems to be doing absolutely nothing to demonstrate this. In fact as I pointed out Branstad seems to be laboring under the delusion that the Republican base will support him in the November general election because they have nowhere else to go. And as I pointed out, contrary to Branstad’s rhetoric, Vander Plaats supporters do indeed have other options available to them in November. As a result of this I have decided to highlight all the candidates for the Governor’s race regardless of party affiliation. And to lead off this series I will showcase the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor, Eric Cooper.

Born in Iowa City, Dr. Cooper grew up in Kansas where he attended the University of Kansas where he earned a B.S. in Cognitive Psychology. He then migrated to Minnesota where he earned a Ph.D. in Psychology. After returning to his native Iowa in 1994, Dr. Cooper began working at Iowa State University where he serves as an Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience. Dr. Cooper has made several unsuccessful attempts at the Iowa Legislature in the Ames area, the most recent in 2008 when he ran against Democrat Lisa Heddens in House District 46. Despite his electoral losses, Dr. Cooper is undaunted.

On education Dr. Cooper believes that the state is conducting business in a very inefficient manner. In a manner fitting the Libertarian moniker Dr. Cooper articulates that it makes no sense to have the government run the education system. He feels that the virtual monopoly that the state holds on the education system is the prime reason for the poor quality of education in our state. He believes that a highly competitive free market education system would be the answer to our state’s education blight. That is not to say that the state would be completely out of the picture. The state would still provide the funding necessary for the school to operate. He rationalizes this by stating that all taxpayers have a vested interest in promoting a well educated society. He believes that the benefits the taxpayers would reap from better education would far outweigh the costs associated funding education. His philosophy is really interesting and one that I have not heard from anywhere else. If you want to read more about his education proposals you can do so here.

On the sanctity of marriage Dr. Coopers philosophy gets a little confusing. At one point Dr. Cooper points out that the government should not define marriage. But at the same time Dr. Cooper points out that all rights need to be extended to all people. This issue is one that I would like to discuss with Dr. Cooper should I ever get the opportunity. For more on Dr. Cooper’s marriage philosophy click here.

On the inflated taxation tobacco Dr. Cooper points to the Revolutionary War. He points out that the Revolution erupted over a two percent tax on printed material used to pay for the French and Indian War. He articulates that taxes were meant to be imposed only for the purpose of paying for the actions that must be undertaken by the government. He further points out that the usage of a tax in an attempt to persuade the citizens to act in a certain way is a form of tyranny. For more on Dr. Cooper’s comments and musings on the cigarette tax please view this page.

I have had the opportunity to hear Dr. Cooper speak at the Iowan’s for Tax Relief Candidate Forum several months back. He proved himself to the most articulate speaker on the night. And his economic proposals were enough to wow the assembled crowd of predominately Republican activists. I found Dr. Cooper to open and honest as demonstrated by his assertion that he is not in this race to win it, but to influence the debate in some way. His goal is to garner two percent of the general election vote so as to win the Libertarian Party major party status. It is clear to me that if Dr. Cooper were to somehow win this election it would be a blessing for our state. Dr. Cooper has proven himself to be one of the alternatives in this race.