Plutocracy and Cronyism Is Alive and Well in Iowa

I first saw this article about a week ago but hadn't had the time (and still don't) to discuss this but a couple of thoughts have come to mind.

A quick summation of the article:  Iowa House and Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed to a bill (SF 533) that would have increased the EITC.  This results in a lower tax for those who qualify (families making less than $45,000).  Why was it vetoed?  "Branstad (line-item) vetoed the language in part of the bill writing that it is his desire to approach tax policy in a more comprehensive and holistic manner."  Additionally vetoed out of SF 533 was language the legislature put in to prohibit bonus pay to state employees.  Why was this measure vetoed (since it was taken to protect against corruption)?  Branstad said, "it would limit the executive branch’s ability to deploy methods to attract, retain, incentivize and reward exceptional employees."
Branstand also vetoed the language of SF 517 that "prohibited the Iowa Workforce Development from closing 37 unemployment field offices across the state."  The Governor's response?  Library computers for internet access points for the unemployed.

The two most effective quotes:
-Sen. Joe Bolkcom, Democrat, "Studies show that the Earned Income Tax Credit is the most effective antipoverty program for working families.   Plus the money is spent at our small and Main Street businesses, helping to further spur our local economy. Yet the Governor continually vetoes this effort, instead preferring huge, unaffordable tax breaks for Wal-Mart and other wealthy out-of-state corporations.”
-Tim Albrecht, a Branstad spokesman, “The Governor strongly supports tax relief for all Iowans and believes the increase in the earned income tax credit can be a piece of a larger effort to reduce taxes in Iowa,”

First, let's look at the numbers.  Families that qualify for EITC earn $45,000 or less.  If the median (not the mean) income for Iowa households was $48,065 in 2009, and income levels have remained the same, if not fallen, since then, I find it hard to believe that only 250,000 families (in a state of 3,000,000) would have been affected by this veto.
Second, I do believe that Iowa's corporations take an unfair hit in higher commercial property tax and that needs to change.  I'm also okay with the Governor changing the corporate tax law because it was a platform he ran on and he was voted in.  However, slashing the tax rate in half from 12% to 6% seems completely fiscally irresponsible.  This would result in $200 million in "lost" state revenue.  Branstad insisted this money would be recouped through major increases to the state gambling tax.  (really?)  The gaming industry threatened to close casinos should this increase take place forcing many legislatures to balk at this proposal.

So, Branstad is following his campaign promises.  I get it.  I also thought that he was a Republican that supported tax cuts.  Apparently he is, but only if corporations get their break too.  Don't get me wrong...I know that both Democrats and Republicans are in the pockets of large corporations, it's just that this Governor was very insistent on cutting everyone's taxes.  It appears very disingenuous to me.  Why not approve this tax cut?  I don't understand vetoing things that your party has agreed to (the Iowa House is Republican majority).  This, while at the same time planning on cutting unemployment field offices to close only adds to the disregard he holds for the poor and working class.  The working obviously do not need the $28.5 million that the tax cut would have given them over two years.