All Night at the Iowa Statehouse

At a few minutes past 6a.m. Sunday, the remaining Iowa lawmakers trickled out of the statehouse. They had just completed their second straight marathon session. They went until nearly 4:30 Saturday morning after their Friday session and then and came back to start again a few hours later at 10am. Democratic lawmakers were determined to end the session by the end of the week.

Representative Scott Raecker, an Urbandale Republican, posed a question to me as he was walking out of the house. He wanted to know if this all-night cram session (two of them actually) is really good for Iowa. He asked how good at my job I would be if I worked all night. Actually, I did work all night. And by the time I wrapped up my 18-hour day, I could have probably crawled into the wet bushes outside my house and slept I was so tired.

Raecker said he just didn't understand why the rush? Democratic lawmakers were already nearly a month past their deadline target they set at the beginning of the session (although technically, they were scheduled to adjourn May 1st. And they did vote to cut out about a week of per diem expenses to save some money during this recession.) Raecker points out to the high dollar decisions sleep-deprived legislators made in the wee hours. They agreed on a budget that spends more than $6 billion and another $715 million for the governor's I-JOBS bonding plan. He argues lawmakers can't possibly know what they're discussing when they're speeding through these high-dollar plans, especially when they are barely awake. Raecker said, "I've heard since I was a teenager from my father nothing good happens after midnight. I think Iowans would have been better off the last two nights if our teens and our legislators had been in bed before midnight."

What do you think of this? Does Raecker have a point? Or is this just how things are done at the Iowa Statehouse and it's up to the lawmakers to make sure they know what's before them?

Prevailing Wage Debate Friday

Today is Friday. And apparently the Iowa legislature will work today. Friday. The controversial prevailing wage bill was supposed to get debated Thursday. But leaders say since it took so long to draft and ready amendments for the bill, they had to quit for the night without debate last night around 10:30. Even if you are the most casual follower of the Iowa statehouse, you know the legislature doesn't work at the statehouse on Fridays. Almost never, actually. Perhaps, one or two Fridays per session? And usually it occurs at the end of the legislative session as lawmakers try to finish up the budget or whatever issue needs final work.

Legislators are only about a third of the way through this legislative session. So why are Democrats pushing so hard to get this prevailing wage debate finished this week? Why can't it just wait until Monday afternoon, when lawmakers usually go back into session for the week? What's the rush? Republicans have maintained this whole debate is just a "thank you" for unions for helped Democrats win big in last November's election. Republicans say this thank you will cost you, the taxpayer, millions by jacking up construction costs of public projects. Democrats say this is a fairness issue. They say it will stop project builders from screwing over workers by classifying them as "independent contractors", which gets them out of paying benefits, decent wages, etc.

Critics would contend the Democrats may think they have the votes to get prevailing wage passed in the house today, so they're trying to get this thing passed a.s.a.p. That way they don't risk losing support when members go back home this weekend and get hounded by constituents' phone calls and complaints at the grocery store. Last I heard, Democrats were thinking they had 51 votes in the house. So a swing of one or two lawmakers would doom the vote. That's why critics say the Democrats don't want to wait until Monday for a vote.

If this prevailing wage bill really would make life better for Iowans (that is why lawmakers work for the taxpayers, right?) as Democrats contend, then don't Democrats owe it to Iowans to explain why this bill warrants the work today? Friday.

The man from Hope thinks President Barack Obama needs to give us all a little more hope. Former President Bill Clinton told ABC he thinks a little more happy talk will lift our spirits. What do you think? It worked for Ronald Reagan, right?