Tag: politics

LOWDEN, Iowa — Iowans are paying attention to government in a way they didn’t before 2017. Planning for the growing season is well underway in Iowa, yet we always make time for politics while the legislature is in session.

On Saturday a couple of farm friends and I attended a legislative listening post with State Representative Bobby Kaufmann.

Ten people arrived to hear our state representative and we held a wide-ranging discussion of issues connected to state government. It was the kind of forum that across the state is giving way to larger events, with hundreds of people. Large forums make it difficult to have any discussion, so I appreciated the intimacy of a small-town get-together where despite political differences, attendees made an effort to respectfully engage with each other.

Key discussion points included consolidation of mental health services, pesticide drift, IPERS (the state government employees retirement plan), and solar tax credits. My main issue was concern the legislature would disallow net-metering for people who install home solar panels. Kaufmann indicated a bill had been written, but didn’t have broad support, nor would he support it. He said a solid majority supported renewing the solar tax credit.

Last Tuesday the Iowa House of Representatives introduced House Study Bill 84 to revise Chapter 20 of Iowa Code which pertains to collective bargaining by government employees. Other states with Republican legislatures and governors have passed such a bill, but the Iowa version is a wish list of everything the Republican party seeks to nullify in public unions. It is much worse for government employees than in states like Wisconsin.

House Speaker Linda Upmeyer is Iowa’s first woman to so serve. She is a board member of the American Legislative Exchange Council which is widely believed to be author of the bill. The bill is expected to receive a final vote and be signed by Governor Terry Branstad within the next week. Because of Republican majorities in both chambers of the legislature, moving quickly is possible. Kaufmann speculated a reason for rushing the bill was because Branstad wanted to personally sign it before going to China as U.S. Ambassador.

On Sunday thousands of people rallied against the bill at the state capitol in Des Moines. In Cedar Rapids a couple hundred people rallied. There is a public hearing later today. Bottom line is Republicans don’t need or want input from the community on this bill despite statements by Upmeyer and others. Here is how Upmeyer framed the bill in her legislative newsletter last week:

This week, the House introduced House Study Bill 84, which updates Iowa’s law regarding collective bargaining for public employees. The law, originally passed in 1974, has remained relatively untouched for four decades. Over the last 40 years, largely due to arbitration requirements, the scales have been tipped to favor government unions and put management and taxpayers at a disadvantage. House Republicans believe the law deserves a thoughtful review to rebalance the scales and ensure that Iowans have a fair and equitable system that works for public employers, employees, and taxpayers.

If one reads the 68-page bill it becomes clear this is one of the most hostile to union bills to come up in Iowa, Upmeyer’s buffering rhetoric notwithstanding.

Because of Republican success  in many precincts around the second congressional district during the 2016 general election, incumbent Dave Loebsack’s seat is being targeted by Republicans. Kaufmann denied rumors of his challenging Loebsack in 2018. His father, Jeff Kaufmann, is chair of the Republican Party of Iowa and is publicly behind the campaign. Negative advertisements about Loebsack, funded by a political action committee, have already begun to air.

The 90 minutes of the forum went quickly. On the trip home we talked about farming.

Around Iowa farmers are assessing soil conditions, planning crops and capital expenditures, buying seeds, repairing equipment, and lambing. The last few days have been warmer than usual yet the ground is still frozen six inches below the surface. I start work at my friend’s farm Feb. 26.

Living in Iowa includes engagement in politics. It is a common thread in community life, something that helps us balance efforts to sustain our lives in a turbulent world.

This week has been tough in politics and it’s only Thursday.

The Republican majority in the Iowa State House powered up their chainsaws to clear cut a forest of progressive initiatives. Governor Branstad has been waiting his whole career to change Chapter 20 of the Iowa Code relating to collective bargaining of public employees. That’s only a part of the rending of what made Iowa a great place to grow up and live.

The confirmation of 45’s cabinet picks proceeded with rancorous success. Attorney General (Feb. 8), State Department (Feb. 1) and  Secretary of Education (Feb. 7) appointments have been confirmed. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to be confirmed next week. To say progressive voters dislike these and other picks is an understatement.

There seems to be little one can do to stop the logging of progressive values. No argument holds firm against the pent-up energy among Republicans in the Iowa legislature and the Congress.

Some of us have nowhere else to go so we’ll have to let limbs fall where they may, suck it up, and renew our efforts toward social and environmental justice. What the leverage points will be aren’t clear today. That said, a free and responsible search for truth and justice will be endemic to the process.

This American institutional destruction cannot stand in perpetuity. Progressives must pay attention, keep their powder dry and be prepared to act when a leverage point reveals itself. That’s a lot different from reacting to every move of craven legislators and plunder monkeys.

Republicans are emboldened by the general election. There is another election in 2018 when voters will either affirm or reject their commitment to the current agenda. I plan to work toward the latter and sharpen my chainsaw.

Like almost anyone of age in the U.S. I am aware Donald J. Trump is our president.

I wrote “our” because unlike many of my friends and acquaintances who say, “Not my president,” I believe when the Congress certified the results of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6 the subject was closed.

We’ll find out together what kind of president he will be. First impression? It’s not looking good.

We knew going in Trump’s style was litigious. What wasn’t expected is he is a scofflaw. If he had followed established procedures for promulgating executive orders, there wouldn’t have been so many legal actions around executive order 13769, titled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

There are rules about executive orders and the White House team did not follow them.

President John F. Kennedy issued executive order 11030, titled, “Preparation, presentation, filing, and publication of executive orders and proclamations should be brought forth by the president.” It has been modified by successive presidents and here’s the crux.

Once drafted, an executive order goes to the Office of Management and Budget. If OMB approves, it goes to the Attorney General for approval. Once AG approves, it goes to the Director of the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Then the executive order goes back to the president who issues it.

If Trump had gotten the review of his acting attorney general before signing No. 13769, things might have gone better. As it happened, she wouldn’t defend it and Trump fired her. Legal actions in various federal courts ensued, and at this writing Trump’s executive order is in legal limbo.

What we now know about the administration is lawyers should do very well in Trumpworld because his litigious style is part of his character.

~ A letter to the editor published in the Feb. 9, 2017 Solon Economist

I’ve been sleeping soundly since the 45th President of the United States was inaugurated Jan. 20.

It’s not for reassurances from the new administration chosen by millions of Americans. Quite the opposite.

The stress I felt after the election got to be unbearable, stymieing almost every activity.

Resolution came from talking with scores of people I know, sometimes about the election and sometimes not. Family, close friends, co-workers, and neighbors were all engaged. Today, normal sleep patterns have returned enabling strength in coming weeks and months.

The roll-out of 45’s agenda has been predictable and steady. It seems similar to 43, especially with the efforts to control communications between the federal government and the public. Whether or not the White House will censor and alter information presented by key administration officials is an open issue. It is one thing to take down web sites and social media accounts, and quite another to censor what is said by administration officials going forward.

I attended a public health conference in Columbus, Ohio after the Bush administration where Dr. Julie Gerberding, 43’s former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, explained the process required to give a public speech about her department’s work. The text of the speech was to be reviewed by the White House communications office, she said, which exercised editorial rights to make sure it was consistent with administration messaging. Dr. Gerberding disagreed with some edits, expressing dissatisfaction with the process. She remained loyal to the president until asked to resign effective Jan. 20, 2009 when Barack Obama was inaugurated.

In 2007, Al Gore published The Assault on Reason which documents the use of information control as a political tool by the Bush administration. He details actions by the administration that seem familiar ten years later: lies and disinformation told prior to the Invasion of Iraq; ExxonMobil’s climate change pseudo-studies released in response to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report; and suppression and intimidation of corporate media outlets. The book is a primer on what happened then and what to expect from the Trump administration.

Yesterday’s Associate Press interview with Douglas Ericksen is helpful in understanding 45’s approach to information control:

The Trump administration is scrutinizing studies and data published by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, while new work is under a “temporary hold” before it can be released.

The communications director for President Donald Trump’s transition team at EPA, Doug Ericksen, said Wednesday the review extends to all existing content on the federal agency’s website, including details of scientific evidence showing that the Earth’s climate is warming and man-made carbon emissions are to blame.

Ericksen said there was no mandate to subject studies or data (at EPA) to political review, according to Associated Press. So the question has been asked and answered. In the shifting sands of Trumpworld, there is no assurance this position will hold.

I’m not going to lose sleep over the administration’s roll out.

I agree with John Podhoretz who wrote, “If every word out of Donald Trump’s mouth is greeted with shrieks of horror and rage and anger and despair and hysteria by his opponents, they are going to find it impossible to serve as any kind of effective opposition to him.”

Oppose, we must. So I am coping with 45 by relieving stress and sleeping better. It’s all part of sustaininability in a turbulent world.