Iowa State House Kicks Out Citizens That Disagree With Double Taxation

[Kathianne]

Want to see anger, just wait:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090331/NEWS/90331051


arch 31, 2009

BREAKING NEWS: Hundreds of Iowans thrown out of public hearing

By JASON CLAYWORTH
jclayworth@dmreg.com

More than 500 people who are upset with a plan to change Iowa's tax laws were cleared from a hearing tonight at the Iowa House after they interrupted multiple times.

House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, cleared the crowd at about 8:30 p.m. The decision brought about loud protests as the crowd was escorted from the chambers by Iowa State Patrol officers.

“This is the most atrocious thing I’ve seen in the history of the 15 years I’ve been a lobbyist. Pat Murphy has acted like a jack-booted Nazi,” said Ed Failor Jr., president of Iowans for Tax Relief, a conservative taxpayers’ rights group from Muscatine with 50,000 members..

Failor Jr. was escorted from the House chambers after Murphy overheard him speak with the media.

House rules say that no protesting or advocating can be done in the House.

Murphy said he should have ordered the chambers cleared much sooner than he did, since several of the speakers were booed.

“The idea behind the public hearing is to give people public input and allow people the ability to speak for and against the bill. This is not an athletic event,” Murphy said.

After the majority of the public was removed, the scheduled speakers were allowed to continue. The hearing is scheduled to last until about 9:45 p.m.

The proposal, House File 807 and Senate Study Bill 1317, would end a practice known as federal deductibility. That means Iowans could no longer subtract what they pay in federal income taxes from their income when figuring their state taxes....

Video: http://www.kcci.com/video/19060487/index.html

[PostmodernProphet]

The idea behind the public hearing is to give people public input

unless, apparently, that input is not favorable.....

[DannyR]

They were disruptive and got the boot. Don't care what the issue is, you don't go booing and interrupting a public meeting and expect to be allowed to stay.


unless, apparently, that input is not favorableIt says the scheduled speakers were allowed to continue. In the county meetings I attend, you sign up if you want to say something about a topic. If I stood and boo'd someone, I know I'd be asked to leave.

[Kathianne]

They were disruptive and got the boot. Don't care what the issue is, you don't go booing and interrupting a public meeting and expect to be allowed to stay.

Actually, when 500 citizens/taxpayers show up, the legislature should listen. Did you watch the video? Wasn't booing going on. Sheesh!

[stephanie]

They were disruptive and got the boot. Don't care what the issue is, you don't go booing and interrupting a public meeting and expect to be allowed to stay.

people are upset with what they feel the people that has been elected to serve them, is beginning to act like their "GOVERNMENT MASTERS"..what should they do, pass notes up there typed in all capital letters..?

and of course the Democrats running this show, proved them right.

[DannyR]

Did you watch the video? Wasn't booing going on. Sheesh!Um, how could you tell from the video? I saw only 1 clip of a supporter speaking and that lasted all of about 5 seconds. I did see a clip of the audience loudly cheering someone else though (presubably before the boot), and then booing and howling after the ejection order was given. Not exactly a slam dunk indicating they were a well behaved crowd based on your evidence.

Again, its not a matter of what the issue is, but of an unruly crowd. I think the legislative members could have gotten the message without them being so.

[PostmodernProphet]

I suspect the folks who threw tea in Boston Harbor were unruly......

[stephanie]

I suspect the folks who threw tea in Boston Harbor were unruly......

:clap:

[Kathianne]

Um, how could you tell from the video? I saw only 1 clip of a supporter speaking and that lasted all of about 5 seconds. I did see a clip of the audience loudly cheering someone else though (presubably before the boot), and then booing and howling after the ejection order was given. Not exactly a slam dunk indicating they were a well behaved crowd based on your evidence.

Again, its not a matter of what the issue is, but of an unruly crowd. I think the legislative members could have gotten the message without them being so.

Wasn't 'unruly' even when eject, no pulling away, most just threw on their jackets and followed the directions. Guess what? Losing an election doesn't mean you haven't a right to be heard. As I said, my guess is IA will be seeing larger and more angry crowds, pronto.

[DannyR]

Losing an election doesn't mean you haven't a right to be heard.Those who were going to speak still did so. Just without their cheering section.


I suspect the folks who threw tea in Boston Harbor were unrulyThey had to be because they didn't have any representation or even the chance to voice their grievances. Not the case here. apples and oranges.

So is it really your opinion that its ok to go to some legislative body and cheer and boo the speakers?

[Kathianne]

Those who were going to speak still did so. Just without their cheering section.

I've been to council meetings more rowdy than that was over a swimming pool. Seriously, the abridgment of rights is out of control.

[PostmodernProphet]

or even the chance to voice their grievances.

???.....say again?....


So is it really your opinion that its ok to go to some legislative body and cheer and boo the speakers?

at a public hearing?.....yes......I always thought the purpose of public hearings was to hear the public.....

[emmett]

Um, how could you tell from the video? I saw only 1 clip of a supporter speaking and that lasted all of about 5 seconds. I did see a clip of the audience loudly cheering someone else though (presubably before the boot), and then booing and howling after the ejection order was given. Not exactly a slam dunk indicating they were a well behaved crowd based on your evidence.

Again, its not a matter of what the issue is, but of an unruly crowd. I think the legislative members could have gotten the message without them being so.


Yeah Kathy! Those unruly citizens should have just sat there and took it! What kind of contributors to the "Common Good" are they to dissent with the opinions of their government. Damn!

:laugh2:

[sgtdmski]

And yet it is always Republicans who are accused of being the Nazis in America. Yet when someone is removed for protesting by Republicans it has been done by the crowd, it is the Democrats that call in the cops.

dmk

[DannyR]

Yeah, guess the Cindy Sheehan's and Code Pinks are perfectly in their rights to boo and cheer during meetings, and have never had the cops called on them? :laugh2:

I think the partisanship is showing. If this was some Republican rally and a bunch of Obama nuts came in and were booing and cheering you'd be saying they were in their rights to kick them out.

[sgtdmski]

Yeah, guess the Cindy Sheehan's and Code Pinks are perfectly in their rights to boo and cheer during meetings, and have never had the cops called on them? :laugh2:

I think the partisanship is showing. If this was some Republican rally and a bunch of Obama nuts came in and were booing and cheering you'd be saying they were in their rights to kick them out.

But this wasn't a partisan rally, this was a House Meeting, you remember those governmental employees who are of, for and by the people. They are the people's elected representatives, therefore they should listen to those whom they are supposed to serve should they not?

There is a huge difference when it is this type of meeting compared to a partisan rally where people show up just to incite and interrupt what meeting is taking place. In this situation I have no problem with removing them from the scene. However, this was a meeting of the people's representatives, therefore, there is no excuse for having the people removed.

dmk

[Kathianne]

They weren't being so disruptive that people couldn't talk. Saying 'here, here' or along the lines of isn't cause to remove citizens from an open meeting. Nope, the powers that be just didn't want to deal with any opposition. Like I said originally, they will see much more anger in the future.

[DannyR]

But this wasn't a partisan rally, this was a House Meeting

Yeah, realized you'd probably come back with that afterwards. Feel free to substitute the two. Not the first time disruptive members have been removed from places like Congress.


However, this was a meeting of the people's representatives, therefore, there is no excuse for having the people removed.If they disrupt the speakers, yes there is.


They weren't being so disruptive that people couldn't talk.Proof? The story says they boo'd and interrupted speakers, so unless you have evidence otherwise you are wrong there. The video shows them loudly cheering one speaker too.

And for the same of argument and neverminding the lack of proof about how disruptive they were either way, do you believe that citizens have the right to disrupt speakers in such meetings so they are continually interrupted and not be kicked out?

[Kathianne]

Yeah, realized you'd probably come back with that afterwards. Feel free to substitute the two. Not the first time disruptive members have been removed from places like Congress.

If they disrupt the speakers, yes there is.

Proof? The story says they boo'd and interrupted speakers, so unless you have evidence otherwise you are wrong there. The video shows them loudly cheering one speaker too.

That wasn't the story, it was the guy who kicked them out. You have a right to hear at a public meeting, in order to boo or cheer, they had to hear what was being said.

Nope, the person with control was being ham fisted, will come back to bite him.