Tag: politics

When the alarm to take my pill went off at 7 p.m., 263 accounts had logged in to the 2022 Iowa Democratic virtual caucus in Johnson County. Some accounts had multiple household members named or in video feeds that were shown. Throughout the main part of the caucus, the number wavered between 290 and 300. It was a reasonable turnout given the persistence of the coronavirus pandemic combined with a more general lack of interest in party politics.

It was nice to walk upstairs to retire when it finished instead of driving half an hour from some godforsaken corner of the county while watching for deer crossings and drunken drivers. My takeaway is as some long-time legislators and officials step back from public office, not enough new names were on the roster of attendees. Democrats have a tough row to hoe in the midterms. When don’t we in Iowa? We chose Richard Nixon instead of John F. Kennedy for Pete’s sake.

The main business of the caucus was twofold: learn who is running for office and elect folks to do party work going forward. I self nominated to be a delegate or alternate to the county convention. I also self nominated to be an alternate central committee member. I hope the two central committee members we chose in 2020 sought re-election, although I didn’t see their names on the roster of attendees. No committee work for me this year.

The single person I recognized from my precinct had contacted me earlier in the day for our traditional pre-caucus chat. Our main relationship is related to county politics and we both have opinions about what is going on. We began working together on campaigns in 2004 and attended Barack Obama’s last political rally in Des Moines together, just before election day in 2012.

A slideshow displayed on a shared screen while we waited for caucus to begin. One slide showed State Senator Kevin Kinney is running for re-election in the new District 46. Elle Wyant had a slide as well. She is running for House District 91 in her first-ever run for political office. She gave a one-minute speech in her allotted time. These Republican districts will be tough to win for any Democrat. Best of luck to the two candidates.

Five U.S. Senate candidates had slides on the presentation, although my only question in this race is whether retired Admiral Michael Franken will win the June primary. It is between him and Abby Finkenauer, although Dr. Glenn Hurst is actively campaigning. Franken, Hurst and Satro Narayan gave one-minute speeches at our caucus. Until the primary, I’m keeping my activism powder dry in the U.S. Senate race.

I dialed in early and the caucus ended shortly after 8 p.m. Much less of a time commitment than attending an in-person event. I liked that aspect of it. Democrats have to get organized in an election year and the caucus format serves this purpose. We now have the framework from caucus to the election, a timeline upon which to hang our plans.

Off we go!

Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks should be consistent about where she stands on support for the military. On Jan. 12, she voted against expanding eligibility for educational benefits to our National Guard and Army Reserves in the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021.

In June, Miller-Meeks said, “I can think of no better way to help those transitioning from our military than by giving them access to the benefits they have earned.” She gushed on her congressional website how she voted in favor of four bills to help our military members.

Which is it congresswoman? Are you for or against supporting the military with improved benefits?

I’m weary of hearing her military resume because while she used the GI bill for her own education, leveling the playing field between National Guard/Reservists and active-duty personnel is something she can’t abide.

I may have missed some fine print right wing politicians find objectionable, yet the big picture is Miller-Meeks voted against a bill to help men and women in uniform.

Our military personnel deserve our thanks on behalf of a grateful nation. But no, Miller-Meeks couldn’t provide it.

~ First published in The Daily Iowan and also in other local newspapers

Government should be in the business of funding public schools so that every child has access to a world class education. In her condition of the state address, Governor Kim Reynolds explained how much money state government was contributing to public schools. Everything was fine until school choice came up.

“But for some families, the school district doesn’t fit their values or meet the needs of their child,” Reynolds said, pivoting to school choice.

If parents want or need school choice, they should be able to find an alternative. At the same time, it is not government’s job to fund every parent’s dream education for their child. That’s where Republicans and I differ.

In the 1960s, compulsory school standards caused a problem in Oelwein. The school superintendent required Amish children to attend public school and they refused. Democratic Governor Harold Hughes intervened to request a moratorium on compulsory education for the Amish and defused the situation. In 1967 the legislature passed a law exempting the Amish from compulsory education and school standards based on their religious affiliation.

What is going on today is nothing like that. Public schools struggle with inadequate funding and we are talking about more money for private schools?

My member of congress, Mariannette Miller-Meeks is in sync with the governor and has adopted a D.C.-based approach to school choice.

In an editorial in the Independent Advocate, Miller-Meeks wrote, “Not every school is right for every student; thus, it is imperative that we give families the choice to send their child to the school that works best for them.”

Miller-Meeks introduced The Choice Act in the U.S. House. The Choice Act “would allow parents to be in control of their children’s education by expanding school choice programs and by creating greater awareness of different types of programs,” she wrote. The Choice Act takes us the wrong direction.

What is the limit on school choice? How much should the federal government be involved paying for school choice?

Public schools exist for a reason, to make the best use of tax dollars to provide quality education for all children. School choice as Reynolds and Miller-Meeks frame it is counter productive to good public schools.

My member of congress sent a couple of official mailings since she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. They are purported to be government business, yet any such outreach is obviously also political. These questions seem intended to frame political discussion going into the midterm election. I’m not going to reply in this format, yet I will submit my answers via message on the Miller-Meeks official website. Here are the questions and my answers.

What are your thoughts on the issues at our southern border?

Enable the Biden-Harris administration to manage border crossings along with the border state governors.

Should government be more involved in our health care system?

This is not a simple answer. Yes, regulation is needed, and as long a people can’t get access to care for any reason, there is not enough regulation and government support. At the same time, health care providers need to be able to make a living and I agree with the Obama administration in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that there is a role for for-profit health care providers and their employees. Since the federal government created all veterans, it continues to be needed to regulate and improve the care system for active military personnel, veterans, and their families. I fully support the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to manage the current global pandemic of the coronavirus.

Do you believe reducing federal regulations and red tape are more likely to 1. create jobs and improve our businesses, 2. allow corporations to harm employees and consumers or 3. other?

See previous question for my thoughts about government regulation of the health care industry. Since the government has been captured by undue influence from corporations that provide healthcare, and industry capture already harms employees and consumers, the best course of action is to reform campaign financing and reduce the ability for healthcare corporations to donate to members of congress and political action committees in order to influence governance.

How should Congress tackle our $29 trillion debt?

Of the suggested answers, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is first priority and overdue. The Trump tax cuts should be reversed as quickly and completely as possible as they drive a significant portion of the debt. In addition, the Congress needs to audit the military budget, which has seemed for some time to be out of control and enriched beyond the country’s national security needs. Why would the Congress approve a higher budget than the Biden-Harris administration requested? They shouldn’t. The Social Security Administration is self-funded and has a plan for when it begins to run out of money in 2034, namely, reducing benefits. Any debt reduction plan should include shoring up the protections for our seniors and disabled after 2034. We shouldn’t wait until then to start working on it.

Which issue should be Congress’ top priority right now?

If we don’t address the environment, the country we have now won’t exist. Mitigating both the causes and effects of the climate crisis should be the Congress’ top priority.

Should federal control and funding of education be reduced?

The states have proven incapable of providing racial equity in education, so there is a role for the federal government and funds are required. All federal funding of home schooling, charter schools, private schools, religious schools, and any school not defined as a public school should be phased out with a rapid off ramp for federal funding. This should be a discussion, not a mandate. The Choice Act takes us in the wrong direction.

Republicans in the Iowa legislature are best to start with the schools. That is, choke funding, limit collective bargaining with union employees, restrict local control during a pandemic, and control the curriculum, especially as it pertains to racial equity. If Republicans don’t do these things, as children become educated they will vote them out of office when they get their first chance.

Public education is the largest line item in the Iowa annual budget approved by the legislature. How the legislature and governor handle education determines to a large extent whether Iowa is a desirable place to live. Republicans would like to significantly reduce the influence of public schools and their budget priorities show it. Issues with the Republican plan for Iowa’s schools are obvious.

• There are not enough substitute teachers to fill in for sick and quarantined employees.
• The Davenport school district cancelled school this week because of a shortage of bus drivers. Other districts did too.
• Parents of students with disabilities can’t find paraeducators.
• The legislature plans additional state control over compliance with CDC guidelines regarding vaccines in schools: not just COVID-19 vaccines, but the science of immunization as well.
• Discussion of centralized control of school curricula is not finished. Legislators want to mandate a peculiar history of the United States be taught and are willing to legislate what that is. Efforts to teach racial equity are expected to be hobbled.
• The legislature encourages use of public funds for private schools.

This Republican malarkey is far from over. In a Jan. 2 Washington Post article, Laura Meckler wrote, “The GOP’s case (in the midterm elections) will center on displeasure over pandemic-driven restrictions, including school closures and mask mandates, as well as the racial equity work underway in thousands of districts. … What’s clear is that the pressure on schools on both fronts will intensify.”

In this context, the Cedar Rapids Gazette reported Republicans in the Iowa Legislature are seeking a way to eliminate state income tax. Flush with one-time money, Republicans are looking for ways to spend it. They have the individual income tax in the crosshairs.

“It’s appropriate to call it a moon shot because you’d have to live on the moon to think that it was a good idea,” House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst told the Gazette. “It’s a political ploy, it’s a starting point, it’s a moon shot and it would have huge ramifications in the state one way or another for everyday Iowans. It is an extreme proposal to say the least.”

Education is the foundation of what makes living in Iowa a valued experience. Legislators should start with the schools, yet when we look at what Republicans have done, reasonable people scratch their heads and say, “Not like that.”

If readers have not done so, it is time to engage in what the legislature does in the second session of the 89th General Assembly beginning Jan. 10. It is also time to get to work to elect Democrats during the midterm elections. Republican control of our government has been a disaster. Just take a look at public schools.

~ Written for Blog for Iowa