› Blog
Iowa’s Anti-Business Message
By Steve Schultz, OperationRedState.com
I sat down a couple of weeks ago and started my taxes. This is my second year with self-employment income so it takes a little more time totaling my business expenses and accurately reporting my income. This past year however, I spent a good chunk of it self-employed so I noticed some things on my taxes I hadn’t noticed the year before and there was something there that has really infuriated me.
I recall very recently hearing some of the State Legislature (Democrats) claiming Iowa is a business friendly state. In fact, a couple said that Iowa is one of the most business friendly states. Well, I’m here to tell you that they are lying to our faces.
During a recession like this, it is those of us that are business owners that will move this country forward. Small businesses employ half of this countries work force. Small businesses drive the economy and innovation. Without us, our economy would tank.
Now, the example I’m going to use is small but I know it affects a lot of other sole-proprietors in the state. While I was doing my taxes, I was already expecting to pay the full FICA and other dependency benefits that most people only pay half of because their employer pays the other half. Since I expected it I didn’t really care. What got me, though small in comparison, was the self-employment tax imposed by the state of Iowa. I have to pay an additional $800 to the state because I don’t work for anyone but myself. WTH!
It’s the principle of the “self-employment” tax that makes me a frustrated Iowan. I don’t care what the reasoning is for having a tax on those that work for themselves, the fact that they justify it tells me they don’t care about small business. What it tells me is that Iowa wants to punish those that don’t work for someone by taking an extra $800 out of our pockets and sticking it in their coffers.
A business friendly state should be just that. It’s one that encourages economic development through small businesses. One that doesn’t impose unnecessary taxes on these businesses. I’m not looking for a business tax credit or some hand out. I’m looking for the elimination of unfair tax burdens. This includes the corporate income tax. This is a joke. I don’t care if there are ways around it or it balances out with tax write-offs.
If Iowa would eliminate these useless taxes and be a place for businesses to come during hard economic times such as these, Iowa would flourish and wouldn’t have budget cuts because of the increased tax revenue from increased business activity. Yes, that $800 may not be a lot of money in the grand scheme of things but the image it promotes and message it tells certainly is.
Melody Borucki, Women for Funk Coalition Chair
I have not always been politically savvy or politically aware. Yet, when I was 29 I had an experience that brought me to the fight to preserve American liberty. One day, I was listening to the radio and the radio guest invigorated me with the message of freedom and American exceptionalism. In just a few short moments I was invigorated, ready to go out and make a difference. I realized that our country was in bad shape, heading in the wrong direction, and that our very liberties were being threatened by people who were supposed to be serving in my best interest.
Getting involved was just the beginning of my journey in conservative grassroots polotics. I vowed I would help real public servants take office and fight for freedom, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. I soon began to understand that being a good citizen means paying attention to the world around us and holding people accountable for doing what they say they will.
In America we are blessed to have opportunities available to us that can come from hard work, and a desire to just be better, no matter what better is. When I met Dave Funk, I knew that this was the man I could stand behind to fight for all these things I hold in my heart. He also has the desire to be better, make our country better, and serve the people of Iowa better.
You can be sure that Dave will serve. His humble beginnings taught him the value of hard work and where it can take you. His knowledge of our constitution will guide him as he leads Iowa’s 3rd District. His passion for freedom will drive him to take on the challenges of Congress. And he can trust that Iowan’s will hold him accountable for being our voice in the government.
Pics from a February 16th House Party
Wild Game Feed Pics from February 14, 2010
Dave Funk at Eggs & Issues – February 13, 2010
Dave Funk Meet & Greet at Cornerstone Church in Newton, IA – February 12, 2010
9/12 Group Meeting with Dave Funk in Ankeny, IA – February 11, 2010
Why I Joined the Funk for Congress Team
By Meghan Swella, Director of Communications for Funk for Congress
A year and a half ago, I wasn’t involved in politics, but I realized everything I love and appreciate about my country is under attack – the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, religious liberty, and American exceptionalism. I resolved in my heart that I could no longer sit on the sidelines if I wanted to be able to pass freedom onto the next generation.
Shortly into my time as an activist, I realized that being an activist must be about more than attending rallies and being mad at politicians. A crucial component of saving freedom is finding citizen legislators who do not see elected office as a career but rather a duty as our founding fathers did.
Those of us who are concerned about our country cannot simply run around, shaking our fists, and yelling “throw the bums out.” In the representative republic, that we are trying to protect, when we throw the bums out we actually have to replace the bums with representatives who revere the Constitution, believe in the individual, want to shrink government, and think liberty should always reign supreme.
Replacing the poor representation of those who ignore our Constitution, is crucial in the 2010 elections. My commitment to defend freedom is what made me put some of my personal plans on hold to join the Funk campaign. I joined the Funk campaign because America needs real leadership, American needs leaders who will not compromise with tyranny, will shrink the size of government, and restore the country to a country committed to her founding documents.
Dave Funk will be a warrior for fiscal sanity, personal liberty, and returning the power to the hands of the people where our founders placed it in the first place. I joined the campaign because I want to be part of electing a man that promises to defend freedom and then personally hold him accountable as he serves Iowa’s 3rd district.
The $400,000 Opinion for Alleged Healthcare Reform
By Steve Schultz, OperationRedState.com
You’ve likely read a lot in the past months about MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. As a matter of face, I’ve gone ahead and posted links to a bunch of articles with him offering economic advice on healthcare reform and how it will decrease the deficit while insuring all Americans.
You’ve also likely read about the alleged $400,000 the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) he received for his opinions. That’s right. An agency controlled by the Executive branch paid $400,000 for an opinion. Not only is this another example of Washington throwing away their promised transparency, but this is borderline bribery and definitely corrupt. Senator Grassley brought this attention with his letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
According to The Hill blog Grassley wrote, “When an academic leader comes before Congress to advocate a position, Congress should have confidence that he or she is independent and not being paid to assist the administration.
It really taints everything this particular advocate has said to learn after the fact that he was being paid to say it and the fact that he was being paid was kept secret.”
This is disgusting. This economist from MIT accepts a $400,000 bribe from HHS to offer opinions that happened to support the healthcare reform bill that a majority of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, oppose. While millions of Americans are out of work and under-employed, we are purchasing opinions for $400,000! This is asinine.
I’d like Senator Grassley to ask for greater transparency on the Stimulus “Slush” Fund. Where is this money coming from that HHS can just shell out $400,000 to an MIT economist for, what Washington likes to call, “consulting services.” They already sent stimulus money to convicted felons in prison. Now we’re purchasing MIT economists. Earlier this year Greg Morcroft of MarketWatch.com said it’s typical for bills like the stimulus to lose about 10% to fraud. Not to allude that this $400,000 was procured fraudulently, but with that kind of waste how does the HHS justify such an expensive opinion. I guess responsibility never has been the name of their game anyways.
Congress needs to act on this and there needs to be some sort of action against this type of behavior. The corruption in Washington is explicit and needs to end. How are the American people going to have faith in legislation like healthcare, stimulus packages and many more when such blatant, irresponsible actions like this are taking place. Both parties in Washington need to take measures on unethical and corrupt behavior. No more of this one party pointing at the other. If you are compromising your values and buying your way through legislation, you should be removed from office. Not just from Congress but executive agencies as well, like HHS. Someone in Washington needs to propose a bill with a 99% tax on congressional and executive bribes. That could probably pay off our deficit quickly as well.
These were put together by Daily Kos:
- September 3, 2009, Boston Globe
- Jonathan Gruber produced a set of figures on December 21, 2009 that have been cited in numerous blogs and articles at the request of Jonathan Cohn at TNR.
- Jonathan Gruber as one of the 23 economists who sent a letter to the WH extolling the virtues of the excise tax on November 17th.
- Also, Gruber’s article in the New England Journal of Medicine mentions that no conflict of interest was reported. Gruber solicited the funds from HHS on May 21st, 2009, and received the award on June 19, 2009. The article was published on June 10, 2009 on the website. The print version came out on July 2, 2009 without being updated about Gruber’s pending contract with HHS. It also did not mention his second contract of $95,000 which was scheduled to end on July 25, 2009. That second contract would HAVE required a disclosure which Gruber did not provide.
- July 11, 2009, New York Times. Gruber also doesn’t mention that he has a conflict of interest in pushing these specific proposals.
- August 11, 2009, the Hastings Center. Still no mention of his being paid by HHS.
- And even after Gruber made that disclosure form for the New England Journal of Medicine on December 25, 2009, he still didn’t disclose in any of his articles after that, including the December 28th, 2009 article which he wrote for the Washington Post.
California Recognizes Cap & Trade Impacts on Economy
Post Authored By Doug Mitchell, Founder of Operation Red State and Chief TechOps Officer – Funk For Congress Campaign
California has had their own cap and trade scheme since 2006. The plan was to begin in 2012 and their goal would be to decrease carbon emissions back to 1990s levels by 2020. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that at the time this bill was passed California had less than 5% unemployment and their economy was growing. More importantly, the “green lobby” in California promised jobs as the result of this effort.
Fast forward to today. California is nearly a bankrupt state and unemployment is at 12.5%. That’s 12.5% of the most populous state in the country. Now, the “green lobby’s” promise of jobs isn’t so promising. Cap and trade hurts the economy, hands down. It will boost energy costs and increase unemployment. The news media loves talking about how many industries can and will be more profitable with a cap and trade system. Well, that’s only because the US government will be subsidizing some their profits to make it happen. It’s an artificial growth that’s not sustainable. Government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers.
Further, with unemployment increased from cap and trade, along with higher energy costs, the number of uninsured Americans will increase as well.
Cap and trade is not good for California and it’s not good for America. If Californians are finally realizing that Cap and Trade will hurt them if they leave this scheme intact, it’s time the rest of America does to. The funny thing about it is while Californians and the Washington inside the beltway crowd recognize the disaster that would come of Cap and Trade they are still willing to go forward with it once unemployment gets back down to 5.5%. Typical, they see the error in their ways but they’ll go ahead and move forward with it once unemployment is low enough again.
It really comes down to this. Cap and Trade is bad for America, it’s bad for Iowa and it’s bad for District Three. We need to get radical environmental interests out of politics and bring rational logic back into the discussion.