Water is life. We take its quality for granted if the source is a public water system.
Consumers rely on drinking water standards developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and enforced by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Where we live municipalities do a good job of compliance with drinking water standards. There are few standards for private wells and the experience is uneven at best in unincorporated areas with public water permits.
In January 2001 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a reference guide for compliance with the new standard for arsenic in public drinking water, reducing the allowable amount from 50 parts per billion to ten.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in many water systems. Neither number in the range seems like much, and at 10 ppb it isn’t. Public water systems have been required to comply with the new standard and if EPA persists in enforcing the new standard, all public water systems should be in compliance eventually.
Not so with private wells where testing and compliance is voluntary. A study published this month in Environmental Science and Technology estimates about 2 million people in the Unites States drink water from private wells with arsenic concentrations exceeding 10 ppb.
The change, initiated during the Bill Clinton administration, took time to develop and more time for communities to implement. The idea was to bring the United States into compliance with the World Health Organization standard for arsenic in drinking water. There are currently communities where the public water system does not meet the new arsenic standard, including one that has been the source of news here in Big Grove. Hopefully they are all working on complying.
There have been at least two deaths caused by cancer among the 85 homes on our public water system. Whether this experience is or isn’t connected to historic arsenic levels is a question that hasn’t been asked. I’m not sure of the merit of asking it, although there are studies with evidence supporting such a connection in larger communities. It is also unclear whether two deaths from anything would be statistically significant in a population of 300. In any case, our public water system has been in compliance with arsenic standards since the new treatment facility was brought on line more than ten years ago.
I doubt many home buyers look at public water or sewer records when considering buying a home even though the data is easily available on line. The proliferation of development in unincorporated areas raises an issue of the quality of management in home owners associations. The arsenic compliance experience demonstrates it is uneven at best.
People seek to escape municipalities. Gasoline remains inexpensive relative to average household income and there are perceived freedoms in living in a small, insular community away from city life. Commuting to a job within an hour’s drive from home is common in Iowa. There is a cost. Things that could be taken for granted in a municipality require attention and potential action in rural Iowa. Who has time for that?
The presence of arsenic in ground water is just one example of the issues of living in an unincorporated area. In a culture of affluence, the quality of water does not often come to the forefront. When it does there is a perception that money and technology will resolve it. That’s mostly true but it requires our engagement, something many people are unwilling to give.
It’s part of sustaining a life in a turbulent world.
Some of my friends and acquaintances are women who carry handguns.
I’m not worried about getting shot by my lunch partner. I also don’t feel more secure knowing she has a handgun in her purse. It used to be a bit jarring to see weapons unexpectedly in everyday places. Not any more. I’m confident in studies that show women are not the main problem with gun violence, it’s the men.
A common social behavior among men particularly, but with women also, is to assert their gun ownership into a conversation as a way of launching a comfortable jeremiad about why they own them, the positive features of gun ownership, and as a way of testing the waters in social relationships to identify where people stand. This is at the heart of what elected Trump, Ernst and others. Gun ownership and discussions about it are a way to sort people in society into “us” and “them” categories. It has consequences in the electorate, so it is important to discuss and understand.
Data shows gun violence is disproportionately a male problem. Of the 91 mass shootings in which four or more victims died since 1982, only three were committed by women, according to a database from the liberal-leaning news outlet Mother Jones. Men also accounted for 86% of gun deaths in the United States, according to an analysis by the non-partisan non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation.
Men are more likely to own a gun — three times more, according to a 2017 survey from the Pew Research Center. This, despite marketing from gun manufacturers and groups such as the National Rifle Association to lure women.
Fast forward to Dastagir’s conclusion that to understand gun violence we must examine the cultural forces that equate being a man with violence.
Financial inequality is impacting society by making men protectors of what limited resources each family has.
I know few people who are increasing their wealth in the post-Reagan era. The rich get richer and the rest of us pay for it as dollars systematically, relentlessly find their way to the richest one percent of the population. Families struggle to get a share of societal wealth and if they do, feel privileged enough to say, “I’ve got mine.”
The struggle to provide for a family is getting harder with the transformation of American business to globalization, government efforts to eliminate regulations, and the current administration’s tampering with healthcare, defense, foreign policy, energy, education, immigration and more.
The impact of financial inequality on the role of men in society has been to make it more difficult for them to provide for their families. That said, I don’t know many families where a male is the sole provider. Women began moving to the paid work force in large numbers decades ago. The idea women wouldn’t seek paid work is a social legacy of male dominance. The male narrative lacks proper consideration for the value of work by women. That seems obvious in workplaces where women earn a fraction of a dollar men do for the same work, and also in homes where a male provides money and resources for the family and women work unpaid.
Men are challenged to be providers so their role shifted to being protectors of what they have. The rise in gun ownership in the United States is directly related to income inequality and the diminished role of men as providers. Let’s talk about that.
Some of my friends and acquaintances are women who carry handguns.
It’s no big deal. The banal and ubiquitous presence of guns is part of living in the United States.
I’m not worried about getting shot over lunch or at an event. I also don’t feel any more secure knowing she has a handgun in her purse. It used to be a bit jarring to see weapons unexpectedly in everyday places. Not any more. I’m confident in studies that show women are not the main problem with gun violence, it’s the men.
Data shows gun violence is disproportionately a male problem. Of the 91 mass shootings in which four or more victims died since 1982, only three were committed by women, according to a database from the liberal-leaning news outlet Mother Jones. Men also accounted for 86% of gun deaths in the United States, according to an analysis by the non-partisan non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation.
Men are more likely to own a gun — three times more, according to a 2017 survey from the Pew Research Center. This, despite marketing from gun manufacturers and groups such as the National Rifle Association to lure women.
Fast forward to Dastagir’s conclusion that to understand gun violence we must examine the cultural forces that equate being a man with violence. Read her information-packed article here.
What is it to be a man? It’s no secret having a Y chromosome is less important than the culture in which boys are nurtured to adulthood. There remains a significant, lingering perception that procreation is part of being a man even though wombs are more important than sperm. Only primitives continue to believe having a large family is a sign of manhood. At the same time male sexual dominance often trumps a woman’s right to choose. We read news daily about sexual predators, soldiers raping villagers, and widespread sexual harassment. Even so, something more powerful than traditional views about the role of men in procreation is at work.
After my first year in college (1971) I went home for the summer. I met with a number of male friends from high school and we each had been able to apply for work at manufacturing plants in the Quad Cities and find a summer job. Some literally went from business to business until they found a job and everyone who wanted one got one. It was easy. That changed.
The jobs environment has gotten very scrappy in Iowa and well-paid jobs with benefits are difficult to find and secure. Such jobs exist, however, the rise of professional human resources consultants has businesses seeking employees who meet very specific “profiles.” Don’t meet the profile or offer something unique to the position? Applicants will politely be sent on their way. If an applicant is lucky enough to be hired, human resource consultants have structured pay and benefits to meet the company’s minimum needs more than the needs of employees. Under the guise of taking inefficiencies out of business operations well-paid jobs with benefits are hard to get for almost anyone. It is worse with large companies who have the capitalization and scale to hire human resources consulting firms.
The transformation from manufacturing jobs to service jobs has not gone well from the standpoint of men seeking work. Retail, lawn care, janitorial, restaurant, banking, accounting, health care, sales, and other low-skill level employment performs necessary work in the economy. Such jobs are far from adequately compensated. Our education system increasingly fails to prepare students for jobs in a service economy. I’m not talking about adding a STEM curriculum in K-12 classrooms, but simple things like how to make a decision to start a business, work for a service company, or get a government job. Provider males are increasingly on their own when it comes to crafting a career, if that’s even possible in the 21st Century. Most I know get by, just barely.
In a society of income inequality, limited resources, women’s rights, and unsatisfactory job options, men get stymied in traditional roles of procreation and providing. They turn to protecting what they have, and that often includes buying guns. It is a predictable reaction in a society with a legacy of male dominance with no outlet.
A focus on resolving gun violence in the United States without considering the changing role of men in society isn’t going anywhere.
The following message was sent to Senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley, and to Congressman Dave Loebsack:
I urge you to protect and support the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations. Please refrain from any actions that would undermine it and encourage your Senate colleagues to do likewise.
I understand President Trump is expected to declare the Iran Deal is not in the U.S. national interest and withhold re-certification before the Oct. 15 deadline. If he does so, he would increase the threat of nuclear proliferation in an already dangerous world.
Four brief points:
1. A deal is a deal. There is no realistic option for renegotiating the current agreement, which is working effectively to block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon.
2. Congress should not re-impose nuclear-related sanctions so long as the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms Iran is meeting its commitments under the agreement.
3. President Trump should focus on solving the North Korean nuclear crisis rather than provoking a proliferation crisis with Iran.
4. The administration should also focus efforts toward strengthening the Iran/P5+1 agreement with our international partners.
Thanks in advance for considering my message. Good luck with your deliberations on this complex topic.
Regards, Paul
Response from Senator Joni Ernst on Oct. 25, 2017:
Dear Mr. Deaton,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to as the “Iran deal.” It is important for me to hear from folks in Iowa on policy matters such as this.
On July 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced they had reached a final deal with Iran on its nuclear program. At the time, I expressed concern that this agreement, which was reached as sanctions were crippling the Iranian economy, capitulated to Iran’s demands and threatened the security of the United States and our allies.
Overtly, the Iranian regime continues to exploit loopholes in JCPOA to advance its ballistic missile capability. Covertly, Iranian weaponization efforts are unknown, as military leaders have stated publicly they will refuse to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of their sites. All the while, sanctions relief has fueled Iran’s support for its terrorist organization proxies engaged in malign activities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan, and elsewhere – places where these groups are engaged in direct combat with American service members or our partners. Indisputably the JCPOA failed to meet its requirements to appropriately and proportionally contain Iran’s nefarious activities – the original purpose of the agreement.
As you may know, President Trump decided not to certify the deal under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act on October 13, 2017. This action does not withdraw the U.S. from the JCPOA, but rather, it provides an opportunity for Congress to work with the Trump administration and our allies to fix the failures of the original agreement. I support the president’s decision and believe we will maintain a position of global leadership by upholding our obligations, while finally beginning to hold Iran accountable for not meeting the expectations of the international community.
I look forward to working with the Trump administration, my congressional colleagues and overseas partners to formalize a strategy that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and protects American interests. Feel free to contact my office with any further information, as I always enjoy hearing from Iowans.
Sincerely,
Joni K. Ernst
United States Senator
Response from Senator Chuck Grassley on Nov. 8, 2017
Dear Mr. Deaton:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns. As your senator, it is important to me that I hear from you.
I appreciate hearing of your support for maintaining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. First, I’d like to take this opportunity to discuss the tenants of the Iran nuclear deal and why I have been against it from the beginning.
On April 2nd, 2015, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry announced the parameters for a potential deal with the Iranian government to end the country’s nuclear enrichment capabilities and attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry both made important statements about the goal of negotiations leading to the conclusion of the JCPOA – the goal was to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. Secretary Kerry himself said, in the fall of 2013, that Iran has “no right to enrich” and that a good deal with Iran “would help dismantle its nuclear program.”
In reality, the deal has failed to achieve its key objective of a denuclearized Iran. This deal, as it stands, puts Iran in a position of strength – economically and militarily – from which to further destabilize the Middle East.
The nuclear deal granted Iran a series of continuous sanctions relief in exchange for a reduction in nuclear enrichment capabilities while requiring the access of international inspectors to certify the country’s compliance with the deal’s terms. However, although the United States has granted Iran sanctions relief upwards of $160 billion dollars, the architecture of the agreement only requires Iran to temporarily reduce its nuclear weapons program. This temporary reduction in activities grants massive sanctions relief to a country which could ultimately decide to pursue its threatening activities once the agreement’s sunset clauses expire without any additional punishment.
Despite assurances that the deal would include “anytime, anywhere” inspections, the Obama administrated negotiated away from these provisions and provided Iran with a 24-day inspection delay following an announcement from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigators of intent to inspect a site. Furthermore, the IAEA has not been able to conduct adequate inspections of Iranian Military sites where nuclear research is conducted. To a large extent, this deal requires the United States to accept, without good reason, that the Iranians are engaged in a good faith effort to not cheat.
On May 7th, 2015, the Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act by a vote of 98-1 which provided an opportunity for Congress to express its approval or disapproval of the deal. Despite 98 Senators voting in favor of reviewing the agreement, a minority of Senators lead by then minority leader Senator Reid, voted to block debate, consideration and a vote on a resolution of disapproval.
Following the JCPOA’s implementation on January 16th, 2016, Iran has continued to engage in a number of activities violating key provisions of the agreement. Most notably, these include cheating on provisions requiring the country to limit its nuclear enrichment activities through centrifuge development, prohibitions on research technology procurement, and not adhering to limitations on the amount of heavy water that the JCPOA sets forth for Iran’s nuclear reactors.
On October 13th, 2017, President Trump announced his decision to decertify the JCPOA. President Trump asserted that the JCPOA does not address the full range of potential threats posed by Iran, or permanently ensure that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. In short, Iran is not living up to the spirit of the deal and that continued sanctions relief provided to Iran is not “appropriate and proportionate” to the measures taken by Iran to terminate its illicit nuclear program.
President Trump’s decision to decertify the Iranian nuclear deal is in full accordance with the statutory requirements imposed on the deal by Congress under the Iran Nuclear Review Act. Under the Iran Nuclear Review Act, the President is required to recertify Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA every 90 days. The Iran Nuclear Review Act provides Congress 60 days to consider whether to re-impose sanctions waived under the JCPOA and or to modify the deal to ensure Iran’s compliance.
The United States has not formally withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal. Rather, President Trump’s decision to decertify the deal now puts the onus on congress to address the shortcomings of the deal. Iran continues to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and President Trump is right to point out the failings of the deal. I look forward to working with my colleagues to further curtail Iran’s dangerous and destabilizing behavior.
Rest assured, that as your senator I will continue to follow these developments.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
Response from Congressman Dave Loebsack on Nov. 2, 2017
Dear Mr. Deaton,
Thank you for contacting me about the Iran Nuclear Agreement, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa’s Second District with the best representation possible.
From the beginning, I have made it clear that I believe it is unacceptable for Iran to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Today, it is more important than ever that we continue to work towards that commonly held goal and ensure the safety of the American people.
Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INARA), the President is required to publicly certify every 90 days that Iran is complying with the terms of the JCPOA. On Friday, October 13, 2017, President Trump announced that he is formally decertifying the nuclear deal with Iran. Decertification does not put the U.S. in violation of the JCPOA, but it does give Congress a 60-day window to reimpose the sanctions that were suspended by the deal.
I believe that the administration should be focusing its efforts on ensuring the conditions of the agreement are being thoroughly enforced. Instead, the administration has chosen to ignore the warnings of the White House’s own national security staff, sow uncertainty, and undermine our national security. I appreciate you reaching out to share your thoughts with me on the importance of the U.S. remaining part of the JCPOA. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor the situation closely, and will keep your thoughts in mind should legislation related to the JCPOA come before the House of Representatives for a vote.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I’m doing in Congress. I am proud to serve Iowa’s Second District, and I am committed to working hard for you.
Originally posted April 8, 2008. My only meeting with Congressman Dave Loebsack in his office on Capitol Hill.
This morning, I walked to DuPont Circle and took the Metro to the Capitol. The Metro ticket cost $1.65 so that was quite a bargain. I emerged from the station near the Longworth House Office Building where Congressman Loebsack’s office is on the fifth floor. I got in an hour early, so with the help of some construction workers, I located a coffee shop and waited for my appointment. As I walked back to the Longworth Building, there was a haze covering the top of the capitol dome. Tulips were in bloom. I cleared security and located the office.
I was able to meet with the congressman one-on-one. I had a few minutes to talk about politics with him before his chief of staff and legislative assistant joined us. He offered me a seat in his professor emeritus chair from Cornell College. It was cool!
We talked about a number of issues, and I joked that I had a very long list of talking points. He made me feel like we had all the time in the world, and that was also cool.
We talked about the transportation industry, and specifically about the energy policy, or lack thereof as it pertains to class eight vehicles. I explained that using food for fuel was not a sustainable answer to our oil dependence or to high diesel prices. I explained that biodiesel was not a solution for the trucking industry. He asked me if biodiesel was equivalent to food for fuel, and I showed some restraint and said I would get him an answer.
We talked about the California law that regulated particulate emissions in port areas. I asked him to support keeping the federal government out of this dispute between the state and port operators and truckers. I presented information about the health impacts of fine particulate matter from engine emissions on residents living near the ports. He could support the federal government keeping out of this situation. This led to a longer discussion about cutting the rain forests down to plant palm oil and jatropha plantations for biofuels and the related effect of removing capacity to absorb CO2 by doing this. I also gave them suggested reading of Carbon Free and Nuclear Free by Arjun Makhijani.
We discussed the US-India nuclear trade deal that is currently being debated in India. I explained that if this initiative was allowed to go forward, the rest of the world would view this as a form of nuclear proliferation and would set a poor example. He agreed.
We discussed the need to have a surge in diplomacy with Iran by holding talks without preconditions. I believe that if we focus our efforts on discussing preconditions, that no discussions would take place. Whereas if we had discussion and reached impasse, then we would gain respect in the world for having tried.
I asked him to cut all funding for reliable replacement warheads from the federal budget as was done last year. He said he would.
We discussed a number of other issues ranging from food deserts to public health to trucking to politics. It was a great start to the day and a memorable one.
Continuous daily work shifts since July 31 have taken their toll. It’s been challenging to find time for mowing, cleaning, repairs and household chores. It’s also been hard to get enough sleep. And to write. I need time to take care of things.
Monday and Tuesday are job-free so I can prepare for winter. Yard maintenance is high on my to-do list as are catching up on community organizing and the apple harvest. I want to get organized for the next few days, but not too much. I plan to go with the flow of time for a while.
This week U.S. Senator Joni Ernst held a few town hall meetings in the state, including one in Iowa City. I’ve read every news article I could find about the event and I don’t see a political downside. Tough questions were asked of her, including some by people in my social network. Ernst gets credit for holding a public meeting in the liberal bastion simply because the senior Iowa senator has not for so long.
Iowa is a state that voted for Donald Trump by a 9.4 percent margin. In 2014, Ernst beat Democratic candidate Bruce Braley by a margin of 8.3 percent. The wide margin is significant. Ernst is enabled to point to it and say she represents Iowa when she votes for legislation many of us find reprehensible. I can’t think of many policy issues where I agree with Ernst, yet she won the election big. That she would hold a town hall meeting in the county that voted for Hillary Clinton and Bruce Braley only reinforces her status with the people who elected her. Ernst is not the senator Iowa City wanted in 2014 nor the one they want going forward. The lesson is Johnson County liberals don’t elect people statewide and Ernst knows it.
The topic of the day was the Graham Cassidy bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Graham Cassidy was a loser from the git go. Reaction to the bill has been lopsidedly negative. With Senator John McCain (R-AZ) announcing he will vote no should it come up for a vote, it seems dead in the water.
Graham Cassidy dominated news media attention obscuring some important health care issues.
The Affordable Care Act is barely affordable, even with the federal insurance premium subsidies. If a person gets sick, the co-pays and deductibles are high enough to disrupt the financial life of those who qualify for participation in the ACA Marketplace. The total monthly premium for health insurance under the law is much higher than anyone can afford. It is also more expensive than the cost of Medicare. If the government were about saving money, those eligible for coverage under the ACA should be enrolled immediately in Medicare.
Health care sucked under the ACA. I had coverage through the Marketplace for two years and experienced something new. My doctor raised the issue of Essential Health Services during my annual appointment, saying what he could and could not do. Rather than listen to my questions as his predecessors in the small, rural clinic did for 20 years, he injected politics into my appointment. He was afraid to give me treatment either because of the ACA or because of instructions from his employer. I did not return to see him and he has since left the clinic.
Health care in Iowa has been bad on many fronts. The mental health consolidation was incomplete at best, failing to include a program for disabled children. Outsourcing Medicaid to private companies has been a costly disaster that delays patient treatment and provider compensation. Despite one of the best healthcare organizations in the country it is difficult to get needed care in this state.
The idea that Medicaid would be block granted to states, as proposed in Graham Cassidy, is one more in a thousand cuts to Iowans. The lesson is Senate Republicans don’t have a clue how to make health care meaningful, cost effective and do no harm.
My fall work session will address our family’s health care transition to Medicare as we both become eligible in January. It’s one more challenge to sustaining a life in a turbulent world.
I do not support Graham Cassidy and hope you will ask your senate colleagues to gather more information about the impact of the bill on Iowa populations before scheduling a vote. More specifically,
1. CBO score: Delay holding a vote on the measure until the CBO scores the bill and the public has a chance to evaluate it.
2. Impact on veterans: Elimination of Medicaid, as the bill is said to do over time, would have a disproportionate negative impact on veterans. Many military veterans I know fall within the federal poverty guidelines and it would be wrong to leave them behind by eliminating Medicaid.
3. Impact on Nursing Home Residents: It seems cruel to kick nursing home residents off Medicaid. Like most people, our family is working to live on our own for as long as possible. That’s not possible for people with limited means as their health deteriorates toward the end of life. Ending Medicaid would disproportionately impact seniors who rely upon it. It would be just plain mean and not reflective of who Americans are as a society.
4. Essential Health Benefits: Insurance is by design intended to help all policy holders pay for the medical needs of every policy holder. Changing the basic framework of who is covered and at what cost requires more sunlight than it has gotten thus far. I oppose altering essential health benefits established in 2009 without agreement between all parties involved, including insurance companies, medical personnel, hospitals and clinics, and importantly, members of the general public.
Thanks for reading my message. Good luck in your deliberations over Graham Cassidy.
Regards, Paul
~ Submitted electronically to U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst on Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2017
Senator Chuck Grassley’s response:
September 20, 2017
Dear Mr. Deaton,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator it is important for me to hear from you.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts about legislation proposed to replace the Affordable Care Act(ACA), or Obamacare. Obamacare has failed to deliver. While the ACA promised affordable care, Iowans saw their premium payments, copayments, and deductibles steadily rise significantly. While promised to keep plans if they liked them, Iowans lost their plans when Obamacare was enacted. Because of Obamacare’s failures, 72,000 Iowans currently don’t know if they will be able to purchase health insurance for 2018.
I support having the Senate consider the Cassidy/Graham bill. We need alternatives to Obamacare, which hasn’t worked, and that reality has been acknowledged across the political spectrum. Health insurance is much too expensive for too many Iowans. I like that the bill addresses one of the fundamental flaws of Obamacare. It returns power to individuals and states. It’s not perfect, but the bill recognizes that each state has different needs that each state is best equipped to decide how to meet. There’s also a phase-in period and the opportunity to make changes in the future. Keeping Obamacare as is will cause people to go without insurance either because Obamacare has collapsed in a state or face coverage that no one can afford to use.
You can be sure I will carefully consider any legislation that comes before the Senate, and will continue to support access to health insurance for Iowans going forward in my role as senator.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
Senator Joni K. Ernst’s Response:
September 21, 2017
Dear Mr. Deaton,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the Senate’s ongoing work on health care reform. It is important for me to receive direct input from folks in Iowa on policy matters such as this, especially when they affect people on such a personal level.
As you know, the U.S. Senate considered various legislative ideas regarding health care the week of July 24th. Throughout the debate, I shared how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is failing in Iowa, with choices dwindling and costs rising. Premiums have increased in Iowa up to 110% since the health care law went into effect. With Medica remaining as the only health insurance provider selling individual market plans in every county statewide for 2018, folks in the state’s individual market will endure another massive rate increase. The reality in our state is that continuing with the status quo is no longer an option.
On September 13, 2017, Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Dean Heller (R-NV), and Ron Johnson (R-WI) introduced health care reform legislation, known as the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal. If enacted, this proposal would give states flexibility to innovate and design their individual markets tailored to the specific needs of their state.
This proposal would also reform the Medicaid program to a per capita allotment for its traditional patient population. As you may know, the federal government’s auditor has identified Medicaid as a high-risk program for more than a decade due to its size and growth. Therefore, it is important that we look at reforms, but also focus our Medicaid dollars on the most vulnerable in our society – the elderly, children, and individuals with disabilities.
To learn more about this proposal, Senator’s Cassidy website has more information here.
Further, Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) announced that the Senate Committee on Finance will hold a hearing on Monday, September 25th to discuss the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal. While I am not a member of the Finance Committee, I will be closely monitoring the committee’s work and look forward to receiving its analysis of this proposal.
Throughout the Senate’s work on health care reform, I have emphasized how we must pursue solutions that enhance competition, increase flexibility, and constrain rising costs. The ACA is unsustainable in Iowa, and it’s critical that we work together to address the evolving needs of our health care system, and ensure folks have a voice in their own health care decisions – and not Washington deciding what is needed in a health care plan.
At this time, I am carefully reviewing the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal to see how it could affect insurance availability and affordability, as well as provide folks access to health care coverage. It’s imperative I hear personally from Iowans, such as yourself, on their unique experiences in accessing health care, so that we can secure the affordable, patient-centered solutions our state critically needs. I appreciate your feedback at this time, and look forward to hearing from you further as the Senate continues to work on health care reform.
What do U.S. nuclear abolitionists do when the administration has no plans other than vaguely stated goals of “modernizing the nuclear complex” and spending money on a missile defense system that has never been proven to work?
Focus on a long term strategy toward the goal of nuclear abolition, using the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a hook and the consequences of nuclear war as the message.
It’s a tough row to hoe because the United States and other nuclear states stand in opposition to the ban treaty promulgated at the U.N., now open to signature.
A colleague in the nuclear abolition movement reported July 14 from New York:
The emotional electricity in the room was palpable. Everyone could feel that history was being made in Conference Room 1 at the United Nations headquarters in New York. And when the vote tally came in, it was followed with a roar of approval in the room. Bucking intimidation from the nuclear-armed superpowers, 122 nations voted to adopt the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons with one vote “no” and one abstention. It’s official: nuclear weapons are illegal!
I’ve never felt hopeful about the ban treaty because President Obama and his successor both indicated they would modernize our nuclear complex, investing more than a trillion dollars. President Trump’s recent statement while taking questions at his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey is disappointing on multiple levels.
“We are going to be increasing our budget by many billions of dollars because of North Korea and other reasons having to do with the anti-missile,” Trump said. “As you know, we reduced it by five percent, but I’ve decided I don’t want that. We are going to be increasing the anti-missiles by a substantial amount of billions of dollars.”
Modernization is not really his decision because the Congress must appropriate funds for it. It’s the normal checks and balances designed into our government by the framers of the constitution. However, what is in President Trump’s control is launching a nuclear war within a few minutes at his sole discretion. That can and should change.
Once accepted without vocal opposition, the president having his hand on the nuclear button should be challenged. No president should have sole discretion to unleash a human Armageddon that could end civilization as we know it.
There is chatter in the news media that President Trump won’t complete his full, four-year term. The better bet is he will and will mount a formidable campaign for re-election. Republicans in the Congress won’t impeach, and the 45th president won’t resign.
We shouldn’t be distracted by the hope this presidential term will soon be over. Regardless of who’s president, if the U.S. doesn’t sign on to the nuclear weapons ban, as it currently appears we won’t; if we won’t fulfill our obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which we are a party; others should be included in any decision to use nuclear weapons.
That change is something nuclear abolitionists can and should work on now.
To learn more, click on Martin Fleck’s report from the UN here.
The Johnson County Board of Supervisors disagrees on how to use the property known as the “Poor Farm” and that’s okay.
There’s no surprise something will be done with the property, especially to those paying attention. Supervisors recently decided what that may be.
In June, “The Johnson County Board of Supervisors on Friday voted (3-2) to move forward with a plan to restore and develop the historic county Poor Farm, including increasing the amount of land leased to small farmers and adding permanent affordable housing,” Iowa City Press Citizen reporter Stephen Gruber-Miller wrote.
I accept the 3-2 vote because we don’t elect supervisors with differing views to agree all the time. We want a diverse group of five supervisors. One that creates enough friction among themselves to hone the use of county assets and community resources in a way to make society better for everyone in this liberal-dominated community. Supervisor Rod Sullivan laid out the case for the board’s decision in a June 23, 2017 post on his website Sullivan’s Salvos. I’m confident something positive can come out of the board’s decision to develop the long-neglected county asset.
I like the idea of using county land as a way to help beginning farmers get started. The idea is different from reality. If they don’t have capital, farmers lease land — a temporary solution in which a lot of hard work building soil health can come to nought if they have to relocate. The cost of farm land remains high in Iowa. Every beginning farmer with whom I’ve spoken said their start-up issue is not only access to land, but the ability to purchase it. The county could help farmers by changing the definition of a “farm” from 40 acres to something smaller. In some cases an acre or two was all that was needed to get started in business. The point is local food operators can make a living farming less than ten acres. Resolution of this challenge does not lie in developing the Poor Farm.
In Johnson County there is a concern that if the farm size were changed, developers would take advantage of a smaller farm definition and build single homes on a larger acreages to serve the affluent local market of highly paid workers and retirees. The concern is not misplaced. This board of supervisors has the smarts to figure out how to enable beginning farmers to buy smaller acreages while protecting any changed land use ordinance from what the county deems undesirable development.
The key unanswered question about development of the Poor Farm is how do farmers make the transition from government dependency to independence via a stint there? Using the Poor Farm to provide land access presumes things I’m not sure are accurate — particularly a level of farming competence I’m not sure many have. It also presumes there will be a high failure rate from beginning farmers who take advantage of the program but then choose another career path. It seems obvious a better apprenticeship for new farmers would be to work on an established farm with an experienced farmer, as some local operators have done. On-site, subsidized housing is a way to help new farmers financially and makes some sense. Answering the question of how to enable a successful farmer to use and then leave the Poor Farm is the dominating question.
The idea of a “poor farm” is so Midwestern 19th century. I resist the idea of isolating beginning farmers from the agricultural community or outside the infrastructure of the city with its proximity to work, transportation, shopping and church. I would have thought we had learned a better way in the more than 175 years since Iowa was first settled.
We elected our board of supervisors to do what they think is right. If we don’t like it, we can elect someone else. That’s the way the system works. Based on the way they are handling development of the Poor Farm I’m not ready to fire any of them yet, despite unresolved issues.
It’s easy to pick three school board candidates from the four running in the Solon Community School District.
I’ll be voting for Rick Jedlicka, Nicole Pizzini and Tim Brown.
Nothing against Coons, who served previously on the board.
Pizzini is the only new person running. She’s a known entity in the community and the board needs new people and new ideas in the wake of the long capital expenditure cycle just concluded with the opening of the new Solon Middle School last week. Pizzini is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at St. Ambrose University. Her academic experience combined with a clear, well-articulated interest in the district makes her a solid choice for one of our three votes.
Rick Jedlicka, former Solon mayor and current school board member, is well known and respected in the community. Tim Brown has been part of board planning during the recent capital expenditure cycle and re-electing him adds continuity to the next board.
It’s that simple for me.
Also on the ballot is an extension of the current $60,000,000 bonding authority for Kirkwood Community College. This is the second time in six years Kirkwood asked for an extension of the ten-year authority first passed in 2005. It is the only item on the ballot beside the school board candidates. Extending the current $0.25 per $1,000 valuation until 2032 is for me an easy yes.
I plan to vote on election day, leaving open the option of changing my votes based on new information. It’s possible, but doubtful anything would come to light that would change my vote.
My hope is the turnout is much better than in previous elections.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.