When do Iowa Democrats talk like Steve King?

Yesterday the Iowa House approved House Resolution 123, which requests "that all necessary and immediate action be taken by the State of California, the United States Congress, the United State Attorney General, state legislatures, state governors, and state attorneys general to effectuate the repeal of California legislation enacted as AB 1437 that unconstitutionally infringes upon the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States to the detriment of this nation's consumers and farmers."

U.S. Representative Steve King has been on the warpath against the supposedly "unconstitutional" California law for some time.

This is about California's law requiring all eggs sold there to be from cage free hens.

The entire blog post:

""Q: When do Iowa Democrats talk like Steve King?
A. When doing so serves Big Ag's interests.

U.S. Representative Steve King has been on the warpath against the supposedly "unconstitutional" California law for some time. After he failed to get language overriding the egg regulations into the new Farm Bill, several state attorneys general filed suit in federal court. Last month Governor Terry Branstad joined that lawsuit, saying the California law "discriminates against Iowa's egg producers."

Thirteen Iowa House Democrats joined all 53 Republicans to co-sponsor House Resolution 123 (full text here). The Democrats were Bruce Bearinger, Nancy Dunkel, John Forbes, Bruce Hunter, Jerry Kearns, Dan Kelley, Helen Miller, Dan Muhlbauer, Joe Riding, Patti Ruff, Sally Stutsman, Roger Thomas, and Frank Wood. Reading from the resolution on the Iowa House floor yesterday, State Representative Helen Miller parroted the same talking points we've heard from King before. Supposedly Iowa egg farmers "can't" sell their products in California anymore, which "unconstitutionally infringes upon the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States." Sorry, no. That law does not establish a higher bar for out-of-state producers than for in-state producers. Nor does it force any course of action on Iowa egg farmers. They will simply face the same choice any number of manufacturers face regarding any number of state laws: either comply with the relevant state's requirements, or sell your products elsewhere.

Some of the House Democrats who co-sponsored this resolution represent rural or suburban districts that will be competitive this year. Others, including Miller, are unopposed or represent urban districts that Republicans have no prayer of winning. Before taking Steve King's word for it on matters of constitutional law, they should have consulted Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. He didn't sign on to the lawsuit Branstad joined, I suspect because he sensed the case is weak. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was not a fan of King's efforts to overturn the California law either. ""

I wont argue with your political assessment of this situation, yet there are consequences for this CA law.

As with most other things in CA, because of over-regulation, things cost more.

Obviously, caged hens are more cost effective than uncaged hens, therefore their eggs cost less at the store. Now, eggs will be more expensive in CA because fewer producers are left to serve the market AND because uncaged hen eggs cost more to produce.

This might be good for the hens but it is hard on the people.

Keep it up CA & you're gonna need a Dept. of Egg Smuggling.

I think his opponent may have outraised him in one quarter officially. But the Club For Growth and other groups would jump in if he was in trouble. They even defended him for his long term record after a weak year. http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/steve-king-too-liberal-for-the-club-for-growth/ Mowrer is also running a weak campaign that like Vilsack did. He doesn't seem to differ from Vilsack. http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/vilsack-named-most-overhyped-candidate-of-2012/ "Vilsack was simply mocking Iowa voters. She insulted their intelligence, pretending she held the same values as conservatives in Sioux and Lyon counties. During her listening tour, when someone asked for her help to block late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart from entering Iowa, or to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the state, she simply swatted the question away and said she would discuss it later. She never did." "Then there were her debates with Congressman King. Although she repeatedly claimed she was not a “partisan fighter”, her actual methods proved otherwise. The formerly pleasant first lady became an attack dog from the opening minutes of the first contest. She called Steve King “an embarrassment”. It continued throughout each debate. Instead of providing answers or solutions, she constantly attacked."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.