Why do Iowans give Branstad a pass?

I've been thinking and have yet to find a good answer to this question: Why are Iowans willing to give Terry Branstad a pass?

It's not like the governor has piled up some kind of amazing record over the last four years. The economy's reasonably good in Iowa, but it never got terrible — despite what Branstad, the Republican governor, may claim. Unemployment peaked at 6.4 percent in 2010, a figure states like Nevada, California and Florida would have traded their warm climates for in a second, and Iowa's rate has dropped only a couple points. But the national economy also improved, and rising grain prices (due to drought and demand) helped. (Democratic Gov. Chet Culver's public works program also helped the state recover, but that's a subject for another time.)

Iowa voters seem to regard Branstad like he's their harmless Uncle Terry, an odd but likeable guy who shows up for every birthday party, baptism and barbecue, always bringing a card or a hot dish and his perky friend.

But he's not harmless. Focus on what Branstad's done if someone you love is in a nursing home or you may go into one yourself; if you could lose your job or someone you care about loses theirs; or if you or someone you care about gets hurt on the job.

The first two cases have to do with the legalistic definition of "at will" versus "merit" state employees. "Merit" employees can be fired only for cause. The designation discourages patronage (rewarding party loyalists with jobs) and insulates sensitive positions from political pressure. "At-will" employees serve at the pleasure of the administration. The governor or his administrators can fire them at any time for any reason.

Here's what that means for you:

It makes it more likely that your grandma and grandpa or mom and dad, your aunt or uncle or brother or sister could end up abused and lying in their own waste in a nursing home. Branstad's administration has reclassified the merit positions of Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals workers who regulate nursing homes and hospitals to at-will positions. The governor has criticized state nursing home inspectors for what he called a "gotcha" attitude. Now workers in charge of those inspections could be fired if Branstad and his nursing home industry friends think they are too aggressive.

What if you lose your job and your employer contests your unemployment benefits claim? Thanks to Branstad, you're probably SOL. Joe Walsh, the chief administrative law judge who supervised rank-and-file judges ruling on unemployment appeals, saw his job converted to an at-will post — and was fired. Walsh is suing Theresa Wahlert, Branstad's director of Iowa Workforce Development, saying she was unhappy with rulings in favor of employees.

Now suppose you get hurt on the job and seek worker's compensation. Again, thanks to Branstad, you could end up with little or nothing.

When the governor took office in 2011, he asked Chris Godfrey, the state worker's compensation commissioner, to resign. Godfrey isn't an at-will appointee. The Iowa Legislature confirmed him for a six-year appointment in 2009, a term designed to insulate the commissioner from political pressure. When Godfrey wouldn't go, Branstad cut his salary by almost $36,000 a year, to $73,259, the lowest allowed for his position.

Branstad himself has said he acted at the behest of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, which presumably thought Godfrey was too generous to injured workers. The association has denied that.

This fits Branstad's long-time record of favoring corporations over workers in a weak attempt to make Iowa appear "business friendly." But his record demonstrates a distinct distaste for Iowans' rights and a determination to curtail them.

OK, maybe it's not enough that Branstad wants to make nursing home inspections a wink-and-a-nod affair with the care industry. Maybe it's not enough that he wants to tip the scales away from workers and toward corporations.

Let's look the main campaign promises he made: creating 200,000 jobs, cutting the cost of state government by 15 percent, and raising Iowans' incomes by 25 percent. Branstad and his administration are fundamentally dishonest, twisting the numbers and cooking the books to make it seem like he kinda sorta maybe made limited, halting progress toward doing all three things.

Or examine his campaign against State Sen. Jack Hatch, his Democratic opponent. Everything Hatch says about Branstad is backed up by news reports, just as I've linked above cites a variety of sources. Hatch ain't making this up, folks. But the governor and his pals have waged a campaign of innuendo to tear down Hatch, with no evidence to back it up. Thorough investigations have shown Branstad's slanders have no foundation.

Putting nursing home residents at risk. Trampling on Iowa workers' rights. Using phony math to prop up a poor record. Casting aspersions to malign an opponent's character. These aren't the actions of a leader, but of a corporate shill and cheap politician.

Nonetheless, I suppose Iowans will ignore all this because it's Good Ol' Terry, the governor who's like a pair of old shoes: They're outdated, they have holes and they let the water in, but dang, it's just too much work to throw them out.

Even old shoes eventually must be tossed. It's time to do the same with Branstad.

THE AUTHOR:

THOMAS R. O'DONNELL is a science writer and former newspaper reporter and editor. He lives in Urbandale. Contact: greenprius@yahoo.com.