Read, roll eyes, recycle, repeat

I'm not an official fact-checker. But occasionally, I play one in my driveway.

I know, I know, I'm supposed to smile, knowingly, at the candidate mailers stuffing my mailbox, and swiftly deposit them in the recycling bin. Perhaps they'll come back as something more useful.

But the other day, in my driveway, I was reading a mailer I received as a resident of hotly contested Iowa House District 68. It was from the Republican Party of Iowa on behalf of GOP hopeful Ken Rizer. He's challenging my state Rep. Daniel Lundby, D-Marion.

Again, I know I should have tossed it. But, unfortunately, I spent some of what should have been the best years of my life in Des Moines reading bills, studying amendments, perusing fiscal notes and decoding NOBAs. Don't ask.

It's billed as a 'voter guide,' claiming to show the candidates' positions on various issues. Actually, it's a great example of how easily legislative reality can be twisted into a political alternative universe.

First, it claims Lundby 'voted to add $1 billion to state spending forcing Iowa to spend more than it takes in.' It cites 'FY 12-15 State Budget.'

Red flag. Lundby was elected in 2012, so he wasn't in the Legislature when budgets were approved for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

Rizer, to his credit, was willing to own the mailer and answer questions about it, instead of just blaming the state party. He said the citation is a typo. 'I messed up on the dates,' Rizer said.

But he stands by the claim. 'We've got all the votes. We've done all the math,' he said.

The mailer doesn't cite any votes, only the budget. And if you look at fiscal years 2014 and 2015, when Lundby served as a minority member of the GOP-controlled House, state spending increased by about $500 million. That's roughly what Republican Gov. Terry Branstad proposed. And far from spending more than it takes in, the budget ended with a $700 million surplus, beyond what's already funneled into a pair of reserve accounts.

Rizer likely is referring to votes on various budget amendments Lundby and other Democrats took, which amount to protests tossed at the majority's budget plan as it steams ahead, all swatted away on party-line votes. To add those up and portray them as actual spending is a stretch, but a common one in legislative races. And regardless of which party is in charge, the state budget, by law, must be balanced.

Next, Rizer claims Lundby supported a plan to allow government to issue bonds and 'borrow money without the consent of the voters.' (The mailer cites amendment H 1146, but Rizer meant H 1446. Another typo, Rizer says.)

He's referring to one section within a 64-page, 28-section Senate Democratic amendment to what's known as the standings bill. It's generally among the last bills approved in the final frantic drive to finish a legislative session. It includes loads of policies and appropriations lawmakers are hoping to pass in the fleeting hours.

The amendment contains money for non-public school busing, public transit, Iowa Care health coverage, and fire and police pensions. It calls for a plan to deal with chronic wasting disease in deer, added budget weighting for students not proficient in English and calls for heart disease screening for newborns. Just think what the mailer could have looked like if Lundby voted no.

And section V of the amendment changes rules covering how much bonding a county can do before it must seek a public vote. Under the code, when the 'cost' of a project exceeds a certain amount, depending on a county's population, a vote must be taken. The amendment sought to change 'cost' to the 'principal amount of the bonds.' Rizer says that would allow counties to build bigger projects without a vote.

Perhaps, but that wasn't necessarily the intent. After doing some digging, I discovered the amendment likely was added on behalf of Polk County, which was embarking on an expensive courthouse remodeling project. Only a fraction of the project would be funded with bonds, but because the total 'cost' of the project was so large, even that small bond issuance would have required a special election. Changing the language avoided that.

Change or no change, the law still allows voters to petition for an election if they don't like the county's call.

It seems far-fetched to suggest Lundby voted to concur with the 64-page Senate amendment expressly to support this Polk County measure.

Next, Rizer's mailer accuses Lundby of opposing 'a plan to provide local schools with predictable and stable funding levels.' It cites HF 2194, a bill pushed by Republicans to scrap a current law that requires lawmakers to set the level of K-12 school funding two years in advance. Republicans contend the lead time is too long, outstretching revenue estimates.

An overwhelming number of school district leaders across Iowa disagree. They want the current law to continue, arguing it allows districts to plan and make more intelligent budgeting decisions. Despite those pleas, last year, Republicans refused to approve funding for the 2015-16 school year.

Rizer and Republicans argue that two-year advanced funding leads to broken promises when revenues drop. That's a fair point. Democrats argue that it makes education funding a top priority. Also fair. But, regardless, this is a difference of opinion over how schools should be funded. To flatly suggest Lundby opposes 'predictable and stable funding levels' because he supports the current law is misleading.

Finally, Rizer accuses Lundby of voting to 'give himself the option of free, taxpayer funded health care while backing Obamacare.' You knew Obama had to be in this somewhere.

The mailing cites H 1427, which says 'The legislative council shall determine the health benefits for members of the general assembly and employees of the general assembly.' It was defeated on a party-line vote.

The Legislative Council is a panel of lawmakers from both parties, including top House and Senate leaders, that sets administrative policies for the General Assembly. Rizer insists the amendment was designed 'to avoid voting directly on the issue of free health care.' And I suspect this was one move in a broader partisan chess game over state employee health coverage. Republicans think state benefits are too expensive, Democrats say they're the product of a collective bargaining process.

But that's not what the mailer says. It implies that Lundby voted to give himself free health care, which really isn't accurate. Rather than address that issue directly, Obamacare!

Again, credit Rizer for seeking to explain, rather than blaming somebody else. He seems like a quality legislative candidate, one too good to let his name be stamped on this stuff.

But, unfortunately, that's how our politics works. Someone in Des Moines slaps some dubious claims on a postcard, cites amendments and other stuff in tiny type that nobody in their right mind would check, and hope it plants misgivings about the other guy or gal. If there are a few mistakes or typos, it's simply the fog of war.

The mailers are one problem. The bigger problem is that our elected lawmakers actually spend time at the Statehouse, on our dime, setting a lot of these traps. Time that could be spent coming up with real legislative solutions is spent figuring out ways to force your opponents to take votes that can later be cleverly molded into this kind of stuff.

So toss this stuff, swiftly. Or use it to light a nice warm fire.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com