Coralville Courier

McKinley’s Memos

Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley

 

Iowans have learned quite a bit about our economy and the state’s budget in the last few weeks. On a national level, a debate rages on concerning the future of health care, a new national energy tax and the possible passage of another massive spending package. Closer to home, Iowans are talking about the state’s unbalanced budgets, out-of-control spending, the poor job climate as a result of high taxes and burdensome regulations and increasing unemployment.

 

Last Wednesday, the state started a new fiscal year which means Governor Culver and legislative Democrats’ $6.3 billion dollar budget, the largest budget in the history of the state, took effect. Yet, the more immediate concern is the state’s old budget that concluded on June 30. The nonpartisan and highly reputable Legislative Services Agency (LSA) found that Governor Culver and legislative Democrats left a deficit of $161 million dollars. Since the Iowa Constitution requires the state to have a balanced budget, that deficit cannot be ignored. While the governor has the authority to dip into the state’s savings to pay some of the bills, his transfer authority does not extend far enough to pay off the entire deficit. As a result, legislators could be headed back to Des Moines for a special session.

 

Unfortunately, the state’s new budget, which started July 1, also faces substantial deficits. For the past three years, Senate and House Republicans, Auditor Dave Vaudt and many independent expert economists have been warning the governor and his Democrat allies in the Legislature about the dangers of overspending. The governor and legislative Democrats chose to ignore those warnings and instead opted to increase spending and then put $1.7 billion on the state’s credit card. Now, the LSA predicts that at a minimum, the state will be facing over a $900 million dollar deficit by next spring and that number could easily grow to exceed $1 billion dollars if the economy does not begin to pick up steam.

 

While Governor Culver continues to be in denial about the fiscal condition of the state, I believe bold and decisive action must be taken soon. Senate and House Republicans have offered hundreds of millions in smart cost savings, yet each and everyone of those budget cutting solutions were rejected.

 

Instead, Democrats continued to build a bigger budget and expanded the size and scope of state government without passing any meaningful legislation that would ease the tax and regulatory burdens for small businesses and employers who create two out of every three new private sector jobs in Iowa. I also offered an aggressive package of pro-growth initiatives aimed at immediately providing a shot of adrenaline to Iowa’s economy to get more Iowans back into sustainable private sector jobs. However, without control of the Legislature, those aggressive private sector job creation initiatives were blocked.

 

Though many Iowa families, businesses and employers are making difficult decisions, enduring layoffs, cutbacks, furloughs and pay cuts, many government paid bureaucrats are actually getting wage and benefit increases this year – in some cases up to 9 percent. How many employers in the private sector are able to offer those kinds of increases to their employees during these challenging economic times? It has been reported that state employees would be getting a pay freeze this year. Only in government is a pay freeze actually a pay increase. It’s clear that government is out-of-touch and out-of-control.

 

To make things even more difficult for all Iowans and especially many in eastern Iowa that were affected by the natural disasters and flooding of 2008, legislative Democrats decided not to “couple” the state’s tax code with the federal tax code, which is something that has been done every other year. Many families and individuals filed their taxes on the assumption that the state would do as it always does by coupling with the federal tax code. Many Iowans are just now finding out that they are likely going to have to pay the state back because they are not permitted to take their usual deductions this year. This tax increase means that Iowa taxpayers will be forced to pay the state about $56 million dollars this year and another $63 million dollars next year. The Democrats have said they needed that extra money for the state’s bloated budget but they sure are not giving much consideration to your family’s budget.

 

**Watch a short 90 second YouTube video of Sen. Randy Feenstra (R-Hull) discussing the coupling bill issue on the floor of the Iowa Senate on April 2, 2009.

 

The economy and the fiscal future of our state is on everyone’s mind and Iowa families and employers are looking for bold leaders who offer clarity, vision and fresh ideas. Senate Republicans have been tirelessly working to earn the trust of all Iowans by providing real solutions to the issues facing every Iowan and offering a new outlook that will grow Iowa and empower individuals to be able to achieve their maximum potential. It’s no secret that when our communities have successful individuals and families – we also know that means we will have successful schools and churches, thriving businesses and employers and a greater sense of community because there will also be strong civic and charitable groups making a difference in the lives of others.

 

This past weekend, Americans celebrated the 233^rd birthday of our nation. While many celebrated with backyard barbeques, trips to the local park and community fireworks shows, we also remember the sacrifices made by so many. It is because of their sacrifices that we can enjoy the freedoms, liberties and opportunities afforded to us today. Plenty of potential exists to make our state a beacon of opportunity that is recognized worldwide but it is going to take a real change in direction and a re-focus of our priorities. We must prepare our state to actively compete in the global economy and give our citizens back their government. Iowans deserve a vibrant economy that creates good jobs and a government that stays within its means, is limited and efficient. With our clear vision, Senate Republicans will work hard to attain those goals and thereby ensure that our best days are yet ahead.

 

As always, I welcome hearing from you and can be reached by phone at 515-281-3560 or by e-mail at paul.mckinley@legis.state.ia.us

 

 

Paul McKinley

Senate Republican Leader

www.mckinleyforiowa.com

www.facebook.com/paulmckinley

www.twitter.com/mckinleyforiowa

A Republic If You Can Keep It: Failing to Teach First Principles

By John Hendrickson

Today an urgent need exists for a broader understanding of history and government. America is facing a crisis in civic education. Americans are not being good stewards with the legacy left by the Founding Fathers, and the nation is facing a national emergency of losing not only its identity, but also its history and values. Americans have a citizenship responsibility that requires an informed patriotism based on our history and institutions. Students across the nation, including Iowa’s students — at all levels — are not learning the fundamentals of civic education.

Numerous studies from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The Bradley Project on America’s National Identity, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni have demonstrated that higher education has failed to teach college students basic civic education, that is, history, government, and economics. In fact many students can graduate from college and not take a course in American history, government, or economics. Russell Kirk in his book The American Cause wrote that “many Americans are badly prepared for their task of defending their own convictions and interests and institutions against the grim threat of armed ideology.” Kirk correctly stated that “ignorance is a dangerous luxury.”

Forces have been at work to undermine civic knowledge and American identity. Some of these factors include modern liberalism, political correctness, multiculturalism, globalization, nihilism, and radical secularism among others. “How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people of who they are and where they came from,” wrote Patrick J. Buchan in The Death of the West.

Many of these forces are at work in colleges and universities across America as well as in society and government.  Matthew Spalding, a constitutional scholar at The Heritage Foundation, noted that modern liberalism “has attempted to ‘re-found’ America around evolving rights, unlimited government, and a ‘living’ Constitution.” This is exactly the policy direction of President Obama and his administration.

One major problem facing higher education is the core curriculum. Many colleges and universities, both private and public, follow a traditional liberal-arts based core curriculum in their general education requirements. Students have the opportunity of taking courses in the liberal-arts fields (physical and biological sciences, social sciences, humanities, writing, and mathematics), but often times students have a wide field to select courses from. This has been described as a “hollow-core” because students do not have to take fundamental core courses that are especially relevant to civic education. Dr. Barry Latzer wrote “that this cafeteria-style approach is a poor substitute for a true, carefully designed core curriculum.”

Hillsdale College, located in Michigan, and Patrick Henry College, located in Virginia, are two leading examples of institutions of higher education that institute a traditional liberal-arts curriculum that emphasizes civic education. For example students at both colleges must take a course that focuses on the United States Constitution. In addition, both colleges place a high emphasis on having their graduates leave campus with an understanding of American history, government, and fundamental institutions. Hillsdale and Patrick Henry have incorporated civic education into their core curriculums and it is the moral foundation of their academic programs and both serve as solid examples.

President Ronald Reagan in his Farewell Address warned of an eradication of patriotism. President Reagan’s warning must be taken seriously. Although many students are leaving college ignorant of American history or even appreciating our great heritage — the problem runs deeper in our culture at large. Families, educators at all levels, businesses, and civic leaders all have a responsibility to foster and teach civic education. Civic education and patriotism must be restored. The nation has failed in teaching first principles and the future of the republic is at stake if America continues to neglect its heritage and values. As President Abraham Lincoln warned: “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”     

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Public Interest Institute.  They are brought to you in the interest of a better informed citizenry.

John Hendrickson is a Research Analyst with the Public Interest Institute, 600 North Jackson Street, Mount Pleasant, IA 52641-1328.

Web site: www.limitedgovernment.org.

E-mail: public.interest.institute@limitedgovernment.org

Just Like Taking Candy from a Baby

By Doug Stout
 
Our State Auditor David Vaudt has announced that he has decided not to run for the Governorship, but will instead focus on educating Iowans on the state budget mess. He has steadfastly tried to make the complexities of the state budget more transparent by creating short readable explanations of the budget maneuvers made by the Governor and the Legislature.  He has also traveled around the state making presentations which try to break the figures down to a level that the average taxpayer can understand. Now he has been encouraged to try a “new” approach to reach the average Joe and Mary who are concerned about how their money is being spent.  He has picked a somewhat unique way to do it, but he can assure you that they will “melt in your mouth, not in your hands.”  For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, the Auditor launched his own YouTube video about the state budget situation recently.

He is attempting to portray the fact that state leaders have continually improperly taken money out of the various state trust funds, which are dedicated for specific purposes (at least they were supposed to be dedicated for specific purposes) and the Governor and the Legislature have used them to “fill-up” the General Fund, which is the primary place where the state keeps its money.  This has allowed them to avoid the restriction that they not spend more money in a fiscal year than they take in, because that restriction only applies to the General Fund.  So they have bent the rules, misled the taxpayer, violated the spirit of the Constitutional provision which calls for a balanced budget, and spent more than we have been taking in to our state coffers over an extended period.  So when they try to tell you that our state budget problems are caused only by the recession, don’t you believe them. They spent every cent they could get their hands on…and then got caught with their hands in the cookie jar…(or maybe the M&M bag?) when revenues did not increase the way they had gambled on.  Instead Iowa tax revenues actually decreased due to the national economy. Yet, based largely on spending the federal stimulus money which Iowa received (also of course borrowed from our nation’s children), the state managed to break their own record and spend more this year than has ever been spent in Iowa before. I am sure you are all very proud of their accomplishments. I know I am. It takes a lot of gall to spend more money than any Legislature in history in the middle of a recession with tax revenues plummeting. Of course, what happens when the federal stimulus money isn’t there anymore? 

This is why you have the state’s political leaders speaking out of both sides of their mouths. While on one side they are talking about the fact that they were fiscally responsible…which they were not.  They will also tell you that there is still money in the reserve fund. (That is technically true, but money is interchangeable, so the fact that there is still money in that specific account does not really mean anything when we borrowed almost twice as much as is left in the reserve fund….we also got bailed out by the federal government on a one-time basis and they spent that money too…and they drained every special trust fund the state had which were supposed to be used for a variety of dedicated purposes.)

On the other side of their mouth, you will hear them speaking about the need for restructuring our state government next year. Because they know they have spent everything they could beg (from the federal government), borrow (from our children with $765 million in bonding) and steal (by inappropriately looting every other trust fund the state has in order to make the General Fund look balanced).  The clock is ticking on their fiscal day of reckoning, so they need a new plan. I just wish their creativity would come with a little more fiscal integrity attached to it.  Based on projections by the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency, the state’s budget is facing at least a $900 million dollar deficit for Fiscal Year 2011. (1)

So what does the media say about the Governor’s bonding legislation, which borrows $765 million dollars now and which will cost us $1.7 billion dollars to pay back when taking into account the interest we will have to pay in addition to the principal? (2)  …Since the bonds will be paid back over 20 years the funds will be coming from money taken from your children…which would seem to be the essence of why we have rules to keep the state from going into debt…to keep Legislators from avoiding their responsibilities and pushing obligations onto future generations.  The bonding scheme used was examined by the Des Moines Register which concluded that the maneuver does not technically violate the State Constitution and while it may violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution, the Legislature has used similar approaches in the past. (3)  Well, that is reassuring…if politicians have done it before, then it must be ok.

But back to the YouTube video presentation by our State Auditor, he uses a whole lot of candy M&M’s to illustrate his budget point. He repeatedly pours the candy from one cup into the other. Illustrating how they have used other “trust fund” candy to make up for the shortfall in the “General Fund” cup.  Now he shows that all of the other “trust fund” cups are empty. Well, you probably have to see it to understand the analogy. The video can be viewed at YouTube.com (keyword “iowastateauditor”). (4)

However, let me assure you, no one will accuse the Auditor of wasting funds on an elaborate production. He keeps it pretty simple. Basically, he prepared by getting a big bag of M&M’s and a couple of plastic cups from the water cooler, all of which I am sure can be reused. Without belaboring the point, the conclusion he reaches is that the state is down to its very last “M.”  We have now resorted to taking money from future proceeds…(i.e. our children’s money)…or to say it another way, they have found a financing source that is as easy as “Taking candy from a baby”….in this case M&M’s.  Funny how times have changed…“bonding” with one’s children used to refer to a good thing…not stealing away their future prosperity.  It is the family equivalent of cutting a hole in the bottom of your three-year-old’s piggy bank and “borrowing” the funds to continue running up bills on your credit card, when you have no intention of ever replacing the money.  When they get older they will be required to put the money back themselves.

However, apparently if you put an attractive name on the borrowing package and call it “I-Jobs” and then go around the state showing people their children’s tax dollars at work, you can make it the center point of your campaign for reelection.  What if the Governor had spent some of the $6.3 billion dollars from our state spending this year and used it for the I-Jobs priorities? Then he could have used the $765 million in bonding money to pay state employee salaries. Do you think he would go around the state doing a promotional tour, telling every taxpayer of the fact? You do understand that money is interchangeable? One dollar looks pretty much like any other dollar the state spends. He could have paid for the job creation and flood relief with the money we actually had…and borrowed to pay for the state employee salaries just as easily.

Most Iowa state employees work hard at their jobs. I suspect that most of the employees at Principal Financial Group work hard at their jobs too, but it did not prevent the company from having to make layoffs and also to implement across-the-board salary cuts. Being an elected official means making difficult choices on spending priorities, particularly when irresponsible past budget practices are compounded by difficult economic times. We should do our best to respect the difficult budget decisions our elected officials make in the course of their duties.  We should be less understanding when they choose to avoid making any of the difficult choices and mislead the public about the fiscal situation and how we came to be in this mess.  They have a difficult job and they should all be commended for their public service, but with that public service comes accountability and a responsibility to act in an open and transparent manner.

This quote is from the State Auditor’s official report on the state budget from May 18, 2009: “Iowans heard many times during the legislative session about all the difficult choices to be made in order to ‘cut the budget.’  Ironically, the adopted budget responds to the difficult fiscal challenge caused by a 2.7% decline in revenues with a 1% spending increase. Once again, the adopted Fiscal Year 2010 budget continues poor budgeting practices while pushing tough decisions to the next fiscal year.” – State Auditor Dave Vaudt.

Take a copy of the Auditor’s report on the budget from his official web site: (http://auditor.iowa.gov/press/Briefing_05-18-09.pdf). Read the short reports for the last several years and challenge your state elected officials to point out where he is wrong. The figures he provides are well documented, they are not partisan rhetoric. They also do not place all of the blame on the current Governor or on the current Legislature, although they have accelerated and expanded the problems greatly. Transparency in government is not just about having the figures available for the public to see, the public has to actually look at them and use them to bring about more accountability in the process.

Changing subjects – Respected Political Analyst and writer for the Washington, D.C. newspaper, Roll Call, which is a daily read for Members of Congress, their staff, and the Washington political community, Stuart Rothenberg, wrote a column this week. He writes a column every week, but this one should make us all think about “political spin” and what has become of our political dialogue.  You would think with 24 hour news coverage and dozens, if not hundreds, of political commentators on the television airwaves, we should be enriched with the level of in-depth serious coverage of policy and political issues. We still have the “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” which offers serious dialogue on the issues of the day on a nightly basis on the Iowa Public Broadcasting System.  In my younger days, the place where you went to get the “real story” of what had happened that day in politics was the CNN daily show of “Inside Politics.”  I am embarrassed to admit I did not even know it had been canceled.

For those of you who have followed politics for decades you know that the coverage has changed; it is probably a matter of opinion as to whether it has gotten better or gotten worse. I think the number of viewpoints covered across the spectrum may have increased, but the number of well-reasoned, thoughtful discussions taking place on television is almost non-existent.

Mr. Rothenberg recently appeared on an episode of “Hardball” with host Chris Matthews on MSNBC. He was so disillusioned with the experience that he has concluded he will turn down any future requests for an appearance on the show.  He does not single out Mr. Matthews; he indicates there are several other moderators on both ends of the political spectrum that he views as being far worse.  He adds Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz from MSNBC on the left end of the spectrum and throws in Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity on the conservative side. Mr. Rothenberg has come to believe that the “news” networks “have concluded that most viewers don’t want straight news and analysis as much as they want to hear what they already think or to watch predictable partisan attacks.” (5)   He laments the demise of actual analysis on television reporting and concludes that he personally no longer wants to be part of the spectacle and asks his colleagues to consider their options…“But I know that I don’t want to appear on shows that push a partisan or ideological agenda and that care more about demonizing one point of view than having a real discussion. At the very least, I hope others will take a few moments to consider whether they, too, should appear on these kinds of programs.” (6)

So does more political coverage translate into more transparency as to what is actually occurring in our political system, or does real transparency require an objective viewpoint and a reasoned presentation of material to be effective?  To what extent is Mr. Rothenberg correct?  There is no question that the networks have the right to put on these types of partisan slugfests and that they must have made the decision that this was the way to draw the most viewers and make the most revenue.  (Mr. Rothenberg recognizes this and acknowledges that they are free to cater to the choices of their viewers.  He has just chosen to no longer participate.)  So the question is not whether these shows should exist, but whether they are adding any value to the political debate of our democracy…or are they simply partisan entertainment offering competition to “Dancing with the Stars”…or the next installment of “Survivor?”

At what point did television coverage of political stories become akin to professional wrestling?  Is it true that we only want to watch players whose backgrounds we already know and whose rhetoric we can anticipate before the words actually come out of their mouth?  Do we want to see any new situation, broken down into its most basic elements and then applied to a formula where the other partisan side is raked over broken glass and left bleeding in the dust, week after week?

I suppose it is a rhetorical question, because obviously a lot of us do, or the shows would not continue to draw viewers and they would not stay on the air.

Personally, I prefer a reasoned debate, but I suppose there is a reason that the “Charlie Rose Show” is usually only on after midnight and in a limited number of PBS television markets.  If you are looking for an interesting intellectual view of the topics of the day, be ready for an hour of quiet discussion and reflection. It is one of the few political shows on television where you can sit down with someone who is 180 degrees philosophically opposed to your ideological views and have a good chance of having a civil discussion about the points that were raised after the show, assuming you can both stay awake late enough to do so. Most people do not even know who Charlie Rose is…but he is a host who lets his guests do most of the talking. Considering the hour and the limited number of viewers, his guest list is quite impressive.

But I don’t think the solution to political transparency is encouraging everyone to stay up very late and watch an hour of educational television every night.  I do think that Mr. Rothenberg has a legitimate point. There has to be a forum…where we can balance entertainment and relatively short attention spans…with the need to have civil and serious discussions on the policy issues of the day. I am not sure it is healthy when our choices range from “Hardball” and like-minded shows on the conservative spectrum…and the intellectual and academic exercise which is Charlie Rose. Maybe something in the middle...someday in the future?…At least sometimes we have an interesting edition of “Iowa Press.” 

Endnotes:

1 Senator Paul McKinley, “IA Sen. McKinley: Memos,” Iowa Politics.com, May 28, 2009 http://iowapolitics.com/index_pda.iml?Article=159982, (June 8, 2009).

2 Lynn Campbell and Andrew Duffelmeyer, “Legislature wraps up voting on $765 million bonding plan,” Iowa Politics.com, April 26, 2009, http://iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=156681, (April 27, 2009).

3 Jason Clayworth, “Session recaps often stretch facts,” The Des Moines Register, May 10, 2009.

4 Rod Boshart, “Vaudt bows out of bid for Governor,” Quad-City Times, May 18, 2009, http://www.qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_55d3b6fe-43e9-11de-ad67-001cc4c03286.html, (June 8, 2009).

5 Stuart Rothenberg, “It’s Time to Change the Tone of our ‘Politics’ Coverage,” Roll Call, June 8, 2009, http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_141/rothenberg/35571-1.html, (June 8, 2009).

6 Ibid.
 

Doug Stout is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute.

"Reprinted by permission from IOWA TRANSPARENCY NEWSLETTER, a publication of Public Interest Institute."

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.

 

 

More debate on health care needed before legislation is passed

As a nurse and recreational therapist with previous employment in chemical dependency, long-term care, acute care and home health, I possess an interest in universal health care. I attended the health care reform forum in North Liberty June 6in hopes of hearing serious discussion and debate on universal health care.

Much to my dismay, not one panel member — neither Senator Tom Harkin nor an attendee — addressed the most basic and fundamental questions of how such a program will be funded, specific aspects of coverage, the hundreds of billions of dollars lost to fraud and the millions made by trial lawyers in medical malpractice suits.

This lack of responsible debate and decision-making is pervasive.

 

Is it any wonder that 70 percent of all health care costs in this country are due to lifestyle choices? These are serious and costly hindrances to "affordable" health care that need to be addressed before assuming trillions of dollars in universal health care.

The private sector — whether it is auto, finance or health insurance — should not have to compete with government-funded agencies/businesses. The private health insurance sector already sets its pricing structure to Medicare and Medicaid, a system riddled with billions in fraud.

How can this possibly equate to affordable health care?

 

I learned through my research that our own University Hospitals was found to have engaged in intergovernmental transfers of Medicaid funds in FY 2000, totaling over $24 million in “indirect” (fringe benefits) medical education payments by the Office of Management and Budget. Intergovernmental transfers artificially inflate the federal share of the Medicaid program.

Although the financial cost is often at the crux of many worthy investments (such as universal health care), moral integrity is even more valuable and "life sustaining" to a program, business or government. In that area, we have great room for improvement. Until we start holding each other to a higher standard more and more of our freedoms will be lost to a government mired in corrupt power.

 

Lori Cardella
Solon

Avoid partisan fireworks in health care reform

By U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

On July 4, 1776, America’s earliest political leaders declared independence from royal sovereignty and established the historic foundation for our system of self-government.

As we celebrate America’s 233rd birthday, today’s political leaders face historic challenges with the troubled U.S. economy, two wars, the terrorist threat, and unsustainable financial troubles confronting the two giant public entitlement programs serving the disabled and retirees.

Congress is also considering solutions to make health care coverage accessible and affordable for all Americans.  Spiraling health care costs climb with a seemingly insatiable appetite.  The health care system represents 17 percent of America’s economy, and health care spending is projected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009.

An overhaul of the U.S. health care system would impact every American.  Acute shortcomings in the system today reward ineffective patient care and drive costs higher.  Reform needs to help the uninsured and include measures for preventive medicine, coordinated care and advanced technologies that result in lower costs and better outcomes for patients.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I’m working with Chairman Max Baucus to try to reach consensus on legislation to rein in skyrocketing health care spending; rework the fee-for-service payment system and root out inefficiencies that today reward quantity instead of quality of care; and, create affordable options for the uninsured to buy health insurance.

There’s no shortage of ideas to reform the health care system.  Most fall far short of offsets or revenue to pay for them.  Some of my colleagues favor universal coverage financed entirely by the taxpaying public.  Others favor a government-run insurance option that would allow anyone to purchase coverage run by federal agencies in Washington.

I caution those who favor driving roughly 120 million more Americans into a taxpayer-financed, government-run insurance system.  The federal government is an unfair competitor in the health insurance market and would likely run insurers in the private sector out of business. What’s more, the U.S. Treasury is considered a cash cow by wrongdoers who have yet to find a government program they haven’t tried to swindle, including Medicare.  Creating a massive new government-run health care system creates an image of the Federal Treasury morphing into a wedge of Swiss cheese filled with holes and bureaucratic mazes for wrongdoers to exploit.

Finally, while we work to confront rising health care costs and make coverage affordable, financing reforms in a responsible way is just as important to every American.

Washington already has taxpayers on the hook for $787 billion to bail out the banks and another $800 billion is in the pipeline to stimulate the economy.  In fact, the federal government is on track to rack up a $1.7 trillion deficit by September 30.  The deficit and public debt are records in terms of their share of the economy, and the President has correctly described their levels as unsustainable.  The impending insolvency of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds further increases the debt burden on the next generation and beyond.  It seems inconceivable and, in fact, irresponsible for Washington to saddle taxpayers with another permanent public entitlement program that is projected to cost $150 billion per year.  Instead, we need changes that bend the health care spending growth curve downward.

Like many Iowans, I’m skeptical that nationalizing health care would make America’s health care problems go away. Without cost-cutting restrictions, a massive new government entitlement would crush the federal budget.  A national health care board would inevitably lead to health care rationing and put the government in charge of which treatments people can get and what doctors they can see.

The nation’s Founders reasoned that governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed.”  The people’s government should not overstep that boundary.  For more than two centuries, Americans have lived the dream envisioned by the delegates to the Second Continental Congress:  pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.  Americans want competition in a free marketplace, not rationing in a government-run bureaucracy.

Washington has waded heavily into the private sector by shipping boatloads of tax dollars out to stimulate the economy, bankroll banks and recharge the domestic automobile industry.  Let’s not put Uncle Sam in charge of medicine, too.

As we prepare for Fourth of July fanfare with friends and family, political leaders in Washington would serve the public good by defusing partisan pyrotechnics and seeking responsible reforms to drive down health care costs and steer more Americans into the ranks of the insured.

A Republic If You Can Keep It: Failing to Teach First Principles

Today an urgent necessity exists for a broader understanding of history and government. America is facing a crisis in civic education, which is the knowledge of history, government, and economics. Americans are not being good stewards with the legacy left by the Founding Fathers, and the nation is facing a national emergency of losing not only its identity, but also history and values. Americans have a citizenship responsibility that requires an informed patriotism based on our history and institutions. Students across the nation, including Iowa’s students — at all levels — are not learning the fundamentals of civic education. 

Numerous studies from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The Bradley Project on America’s National Identity, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni have demonstrated that higher education has failed to teach college students basic civic education. In fact many students can graduate from college and not take a course in American history, government, or economics. “Many Americans are badly prepared for their task of defending their own convictions and interests and institutions against the grim threat of armed ideology,” wrote Russell Kirk in The American Cause, a short but powerful book on the principles of the American Republic. (1)  In addition Kirk argued that “ignorance is a dangerous luxury.” (2) 

Forces have been at work to undermine civic knowledge and the American identity. Some of these factors include modern liberalism, political correctness, multiculturalism, globalization, nihilism, and radical secularism among others. “How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: destroy its memory. Deny a people of who they are and where they came from,” wrote Patrick J. Buchanan in The Death of the West. (3)  Matthew Spalding, Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, recently wrote:

While there is much that we have forgotten of late about our history, the growing absence of America’s foundational principles in our country’s life is not simply a case of national amnesia. Over the course of the 20th century, America’s principles have been attacked, undermined, and redefined by progressive liberalism — in our culture, in our universities, and in our politics. Based on the anti-foundational concepts of relativism and historicism, liberalism has attempted to ‘re-found’ America around evolving rights, unlimited government, and a ‘living’ Constitution. (4) 

Forces and ideologies are at work undermining both civic education and American identity. “Destroy the record of a people’s past, leave it in ignorance of who its ancestors were and what they did, and one can fill the empty vessels of their souls with a new history…,” wrote Buchanan. (5) 

One major problem facing higher education is the core curriculum. Many colleges and universities, both public and private, follow a traditional liberal-arts based core curriculum in their general education requirements. Students have the opportunity of taking courses in the liberal-arts fields (physical and biological sciences, social sciences, humanities, writing, and mathematics), but often times students have a wide field to select courses from. (6)  This has been described as a “hollow-core” because students do not have to take fundamental core courses that are especially relevant to civic education. “This cafeteria-style approach is a poor substitute for a true, carefully designed core curriculum,” wrote Dr. Barry Latzer. (7)  

Many of Iowa’s private and public colleges and universities have broad core curriculums, which follow the liberal-arts, but they tend to be hollow. Both Hillsdale College in Michigan and Patrick Henry College in Virginia are two examples of institutions of higher education that institute a traditional liberal arts core curriculum that emphasizes civic education. For example students at both Hillsdale and Patrick Henry Colleges must take a specific course that focuses on the Constitution. In addition, both colleges place an emphasis on having their graduates leave campus with an understanding of American history, government, and fundamental institutions.  Hillsdale and Patrick Henry have incorporated civic education into their core curriculums and it is the moral foundation of their academic programs. 

In his farewell address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan warned of the eradication of the American spirit and patriotism. (8)  The decline of civic education and American identity is a serious problem. Although many students are leaving college ignorant of American history or even appreciating American history and values, the problem runs deeper in our culture at large. Families, educators (elementary and secondary), businesses, and civic leaders all have a responsibility to foster and teach civic education. 

“We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation as to make them capable of absorbing ancient learning and applying it to the problem of its own day,” wrote Barry Goldwater. (9)  The leadership of higher education, policymakers, and parents need to restore civic education back to the core curriculum. Hillsdale and Patrick Henry serve as solid examples of institutions that place an emphasis on civic education in their core curriculums. The nation has failed in teaching first principles, and the future of the republic is at stake if America continues to neglect its heritage and values. 

Endnotes:

1. Russell Kirk, The American Cause, ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware, 2004,  p. 1.

2. Ibid., p. 1 and 4.

3. Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, Thomas Dunne Books, New York, 2002, p. 147.

4. Matthew Spalding, “A New American Fusionism: Recovering Principles in Our Politics,” Heritage Lectures, No.1114, March 17, 2009, p. 2.

5. Buchanan, p. 147.

6. Barry Latzer, The Hollow Core: Failure of the General Education Curriculum, A Fifty College Study, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Washington, D.C., April 2004, p. 2 and 12.

7. Ibid., p. 4.

8. Ronald Reagan, “Farewell Address to the Nation, January 11, 1989,” Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989, pp. 416-417.

9. Barry M. Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, MJF Books, New York, 1990, p. 67.

Public Interest Institute's POLICY STUDY, "A Republic If You Can Keep It: Failing to Teach First Principles," can be viewed at www.limitedgovernment.org. 

John Hendrickson is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute, Mount Pleasant, Iowa.
 
Reprinted by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute.  The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.

It takes a special person to be called “Dad”

By Deborah D. Thornton

Father’s Day was not an official holiday in the United States until 1972, when President Richard Nixon made it a permanent holiday, always the third Sunday in June. (1)  However, the idea began 100 years ago this year, when Sonora Dodd of Spokane, Washington, after listening to a Mother’s Day sermon, decided her father needed honoring too.  He had raised her following her mother’s death. (2)  Being a father was not an easy job in 1909 and is not any easier today. 

Research shows that not having a father in their life results in significant problems for children.  Children without fathers are “two-to-three times more likely to be poor.”  They are more likely to use drugs and to have education, health, emotional, and behavioral problems.  In addition they are more likely to be victims of child abuse and to have criminal behavior issues. (3) Unfortunately in the United States today, “half of all children and 80 percent of African American children” will spend all or part of their childhood without a father. (4)  This is caused by significant changes in the way adults live their lives, according to studies cited in “The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man,” by the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI).  Today one third of children are born to single women from the beginning and many marriages end in divorce – with the same result, a child without a resident father.  The most significant result of this is economic.  As of 2003 over 39 percent of children with single mothers lived in poverty, compared to only 8.8 percent of two parent families. (5) The NFI characterizes this rise as “meteoric.” (6)  In one extreme example, a man from Tennessee has created at least 20 children with at least 11 different women. (7) 

Children without fathers result in major costs to society.  The NFI report documented 13 federal government means-tested programs that are directly involved in providing taxpayer support to children without fathers and came up with a total cost of almost $100 billion. (8) The $100 billion number is considered to be low because the NFI did not count programs that benefit communities, or benefit individuals without income considerations.  They also did not count indirect costs and state-funded programs.  Federal programs considered include the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, school lunch programs, the Women Infants and Children program, Head Start, child care, energy assistance, public housing and Section 8 housing, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan. (9)
 

In Iowa, the children’s health insurance program is called I-Hawk, the Iowa Healthy and Well Kids program.  In the 2009 legislative session this program was expanded to cover almost all of Iowa’s children, at a cost of over $21 million, with the federal government covering $13 million, and the state $7-8 million (Senate File 389). (10) The state of Iowa has other family support programs, tied into the federal funding and run out of organizations as diverse as the Iowa State Extension Service.  This includes access and visitation grants, which help non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — to spend time with their children.  An important way absent parents may support their children is through child support payments.  Unfortunately in FY2008 over $950 million dollars of child support payments in Iowa were in arrears, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human services. (11)  If the child support payments were made, the I-Hawk program might not need $21 million.

In an effort to support and encourage fathers, the non-profit National Fatherhood Initiative was started in 1994 with the idea that fathers make unique and irreplaceable contributions to their children, that their absence is negative, that society should support responsible fathering, and that “fatherlessness is the most socially consequential problem of our time.” (12)  Their programs include training and support for fathers in healthcare and school issues and special training for military and corrections dads.  One of their donor groups is called the “Dad’s Club,” and for a $30.00 membership you become a “Member for Life” because “Being a Dad is a lifetime commitment.”  They also have an affinity bracelet, which reads “No ifs,” symbolizing a man’s commitment that “There are ‘No ifs’ when it comes to being the best Dad you can be!” (13)  

In Des Moines, the Fatherhood Initiative 12-week training program has worked with over 150 men and graduated more than 60 since 2007.  The program is free and serves all fathers, from teenagers to those leaving prison to 70-year-old fathers.  In addition they started working at Camp Dodge in May, helping to address the specific issues associated with being a military dad and often being away for a long period of time. (14)

As the song Daddy’s Hands, by country singer/songwriter Holly Dunn says,

“I remember daddy’s hands folded silently in prayer

And reachin’ out to hold me, when I had a nightmare…

I remember daddy’s hands how they held my mama tight

And patted my back for something done right.” (15)

If a child’s father is not there to pray, hold their mother, and pat their back, that child suffers.  On this Father’s Day, June 21, 2009, in the midst of a national recession, growing unemployment, and difficult mortgages, we at the Public Interest Institute honor all the men who are there for their children, both in-person and financially.  The responsible men who are doing the best they can in a tough world.  Thank you, Dad! 

Endnotes:

1. Happy Father’s Day, <http://www.morning-glow.com/holidays/father/father.html> (May 14, 2009).

2. Ibid.

3. Steven L. Nock and Christopher J. Einolf, “The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man,” The National Fatherhood Initiative, 2008, p. 4.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., p.3.

6. Ibid., p.4.

7. "Desmond Hatchett:  29 Year Old With 21 Kids," Huffington Post, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/desmond-hatchett-29-year_n_208393.html> (May 29, 2009).

8. Nock and Einolf, p.4.

9. Ibid., p.10.

10. Tony Leys and Jennifer Jacobs, “Children’s health care bill passes Iowa Senate,” The Des Moines Register, March 19, 2009.

11. Child Support Enforcement, Health and Human Services FY 2008 Preliminary Report, <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ programs/cse/pubs/2009/reports/preliminary_report_fy2008/state.html#Iowa> (May 14, 2009).

12. The National Fatherhood Initiative, <www.fatherhood.org/history.asp> (My 14, 2009).

13. The National Fatherhood Initiative, <http://www.fatherhood.org/noifs.asp> (May 14, 2009).

14. Lisa Colonno, “Fatherhood Initiative helps men realize their value,” The Des Moines Register, May 5, 2009.

15. Holly Dunn, My Daddy’s Hands, <http://www.metrolyrics.com/daddys-hands-lyrics-holly-dunn.html> (May 14, 2009). 
 

Deborah D. Thornton is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute, Mount Pleasant, Iowa.

Reprinted by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute.  The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.

Borrowing our children's future

By Doug Stout

We all know that the way to get ahead in life is not to accumulate debt. We make exceptions when we are making an investment in our future.  We borrow to buy our first house, because it is such a big investment that it would take us many years of saving our money to be able to buy it for cash. In the meantime, we would still have to be paying for a place to live, and we would not be building up any equity in a home with the money we were spending.  

We also borrow money to further our educations.  We invest in our own futures by borrowing money now with the very good prospect that the future returns from our career earnings will eventually far exceed the amount of the money we borrowed and the interest on the debt.  Even then sometimes, for some people, this does not turn out to be a good investment. 

However, we all understand that you do not get rich by borrowing money.  The people who loan the money are the people who may get rich through the process. Being in debt is a position of weakness. It limits your ability to live life the way you want to do so.  It limits your options in life and career.  It puts severe restrictions on your future economic flexibility, and it is a burden which you must carry with you.  It is to be done, by responsible people, only when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  It is a serious obligation and one which should never be taken lightly. We lecture our children on the subject of building up unnecessary debt, or at least we know we should. Even if sometimes our weakness for wanting something now, outweighs our good sense.  But even in those cases, responsible parents caution their children to “learn from my mistakes,” or at worst, “do as I say, not as I do.”  We all know it is not a path to wealth and prosperity.

So why then, do we accept extreme government borrowing so easily?  Why do we continually choose government leaders who make very little pretense that they are going to keep government “living within its means?”  I think it is because government finances are sometimes beyond the scope of both our understanding and beyond the scope of what we believe we can really influence. The sums are sometimes beyond the comprehension of even our most educated and interested citizens. Even our elected officials will sometimes get confused and talk about billions as though they were millions…and the idea of a trillion is just not something we can relate to in any meaningful way. We have lives to live and trying to balance our checkbooks and maybe figure out the return on our mutual fund, or just making sure we keep current on our bills and insurance payments and mortgages is the extent of our involvement with high finance.

I don’t expect that the general public’s priorities will change anytime soon. We live in a society that tends to live for today…and worry about tomorrow when it gets here, an era of instant gratification. It will take a national figure with the credibility and a knack for public communication to convince the American people of the deep hole we are digging for ourselves which threatens to destroy our economic vitality permanently and to usher in an era of dramatically lower standards of living for our children and for their children. If not altered, continuing on this path will mean an America that is impoverished to a level we can’t currently even envision.

In Iowa, we have always known the value of hard work and thrift. We have always had at least the rhetorical view from our statewide leaders that they were important values to cherish, that we must “pay as we go” in life and in our government. There have been times when our leaders did not live up to their own rhetorical guidelines as they actually put together state budgets. However, this time is different.

Our Governor Chet Culver (D), the leader of state government, has changed the rules. When he gave his state of the state address earlier this year he actually said:  “This is the first time in our state’s history that we have earned an AAA credit rating and I intend to use it!” (1)  With our State Legislators as his accomplices, he set out to achieve just that.  Our Governor proudly declared that his “signature” request, in other words his highest priority, the most important goal of Administration, was to borrow $765 million dollars ($765,000,000) and put the state in debt. (2)  It is estimated that the amount we as taxpayers will have to pay back is actually over $1.7 billion dollars ($1,700,000,000)(3) when the interest on the borrowing is included. We have roughly 3 million Iowans, including our children, so every man, woman, and child in Iowa will owe $567 just from this bond issue. A family of 4 will owe $2267, just for the Governor’s “signature proposal,” which the Legislature adopted at his request. An Iowa Poll published by The Des Moines Register in April showed that 71% of Iowans opposed the state bonding plan. (4)

You also need to realize that the Legislature passed the largest budget in Iowa history, even without including the bonding proposal. The budget is $6.3 billion dollars this year. (5) Supporters argue that the bonding proposal went to good purposes and list where the money is going. You should not be misled by this argument. Money is interchangeable. The priorities listed in the bonding proposal could have been funded within the $6.3 billion dollars of state funding; of course it would have meant not spending money on something else. It is the Governor and the Legislature’s job to set priorities on how the $6.3 billion should be spent. Job creation, flood relief, and education should probably be high on the list, whatever they decided was at the bottom of the list should not have been funded if we can’t pay for it now.

How sad it is that the highest priority of the Governor is to ask the Legislature to take money from our children, so that we don’t have to make the sacrifices today to pay our bills as we go.  What does it say about our priorities as a state?  What does it say about Iowans?  The dream of every American used to be to leave our country and our state in a better condition than we found it for the benefit of those that come after us.  At what point did we become a state where our Governor’s highest priority is to ask our children to sacrifice their standard of living, rather than asking Iowans and their elected representatives to make the hard choices that come with their positions of responsibility?  At what point did the arrow turn from living our lives with less… to sacrifice for our children…to asking them to pay back our bills and sacrifice for us?
 

Endnotes:

1. Governor Chet Culver, Transcript of 2009 Condition of the State Speech, Iowa Public Television, January 13, 2009, http://www.iptv.org/video/detail.cfm/3233/cos 20090107 condition state 2009 (January 26, 2009).

2. O.Kay Henderson, “Governor gets ‘signature’ request: money for ‘I-Jobs,’” Radio Iowa, April 25, 2009, http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=DFA9E9D5-5056-B82A-3740DDA91 (April 26, 2009).

3. Lynn Campbell and Andrew Duffelmeyer, “Legislature wraps up voting on $765 million bonding plan,” IowaPolitics.com, April 26, 2009, http://iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=156681. (April 27, 2009).

4. Thomas Beaumont, “Most Iowans have doubts about federal stimulus plan,” The Des Moines Register, April 12, 2009 <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= 2009904120388, (April 14, 2009).

5. Craig Robinson, “Thieves in the Night,” The Iowa Republican, April 27, 2009, http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/04/27/thieves-in-the-night/ (April 27, 2009).

Doug Stout is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute, Mount Pleasant, Iowa.

Reprinted by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.

                        

The false goal of the “greater good”

The economy is in the tank and Iowans are losing their jobs, but don't worry, the government can solve these problems. What is the government’s plan to help hard-working Iowans?

First, mortgage the future by spending more than taxes bring in.

Then, try to repay the Union Bosses for their campaign contributions by attempting to impose damaging new regulations like Prevailing Wage and Collective Bargaining.

And don’t forget about the Democrats' effort in the Iowa House to raise taxes by repealing Federal Deductibility.

In the minds of the “intellectual elite” that run our government, these policies make sense. They have decided what the “greater good” is and they feel the need to impose their whims on us. They do not recognize our ability and right to run our own lives, so they control us. To Big Government, there is nothing that isn't justified by the false goal of the “greater good”.

Unless we realize that we, the free citizens of Iowa, are in a struggle against our government to maintain our liberty and rebuild a broken economy, Big Government will continue to disregard common sense and the will of Iowans.

The Des Moines Tea Party is taking the lead in this battle. On April 15th, the Des Moines Tea Party turned out close to 4,000 people from all over Iowa to protest the massive deficits, high taxes and restriction of our rights that the government is forcing upon us all. The Des Moines Tax Day Tea Party was a huge success and it showed that Iowans won’t stand by while the government runs wild.

On July 4th, Independence Day, the Des Moines Tea Party will once again gather patriotic citizens at the State Capitol building to protest the government’s tax-and-spend, socialist policies. But our efforts can’t and won’t stop there.

The Des Moines Tea Party is ultimately about more than protests. It is about a long-term grassroots movement to take back our country. We are becoming engaged on every level of government; local, state and federal. Our first battle is with the Des Moines School Board.

Recently, the Des Moines School Board has tried to take complete control over students by revising the Student Code of Conduct. The change gives the School Board power over our children 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. And much worse, the new code permits schools to scour the internet for evidence against students who don’t obey the School Board even when the child is in his own home. This expansion of control over students is not simply a school issue, it is a Big Government power grab.

If we allow the government, through the Des Moines School Board, to have complete and total authority over students, how long will it be before the government comes for the rest of us? Total government control over students represents an infringement on the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. If we don’t stop our government now, if we don’t hold it accountable, then we will continue to see our freedom erode. As I said at the Des Moines Tax Day Tea Party, “If not us, then who? If not now, then when?”

I ask that you join the Des Moines Tea Party in our effort to take our country back. Our website, www.desmoinesteaparty.com has information about what you can do to make that happen.

The issues of high taxes, outrageous spending and ever-expanding government affect us all. We must demand that our government listen to us and fight any attempt by the government to run our lives. The freedom and prosperity of the current and future generations depends on what we do now.

~ Submitted by Charlie Gruschow, one of the organizers of the Des Moines Tea Party

Where has our Power Gone?

By Deborah D. Thornton

A year ago, in the May 2008 Public Interest Institute Iowa Economic Scorecard, I encouraged our readers to have the courage to use the power already in our hands. I would reiterate that sentiment, but I’m not sure we still have that power. Federal and State govern­ments are out of control, spending every penny they can find. The federal budget this year? $3.9 trillion, double the level of spend­ing in eight years, with over 1,800 subsidy programs. Their attitude in Washington, D.C. is: “What’s a deficit? We’ll make it up in four, no five, no seven years.” In all likelihood, it will never be made up. Our children will be paying for the rest of their lives. 

At the state level, Governor Culver just signed the largest state budget ever. Of this, over $530 million is coming from federal stimulus money. In addition, there is a bonding (read “borrowing”) plan of another $830 million. The interest on these bonds will cost millions, over the next 20 years, at current rates. By the time these bonds are paid off, the infra­structure will be worn out and need to be replaced again. State government will just use more loans, I guess. Governor Culver isn’t worried; someone else will be Governor in 20 years. Meanwhile our population, and therefore taxpaying workers, continues to age.  Our children continue to move elsewhere and our schools are shrinking. 

For Fiscal Year 2008 the Iowa General Fund budget was $5.9 billion, in FY 2009 it increased, and the FY 2010 budget just passed and signed is for at least $6.2 billion. Meanwhile, March 2009 Revenue Estimating Conference estimates are only $5.7 billion. Without the federal money the budget would not be balanced, as required by law. At the same time, over $232 million in savings proposed by the minority party were voted down in a straight line Democrat (majority) versus Republican (minority) vote.

The power even to be listened to is certainly not in Republican hands. This was clearly demonstrated when Speaker of the House, Pat Murphy, threw over 500 taxpaying citizens out of the gallery during a “public” hearing they had every right to attend. His premise was that you were supposed to be quiet when in the House gallery, though this was not an official legislative session.  Even though they were talking about a major change in Iowa tax law, the repeal of federal deductibility, the people were not important enough to be heard.

On April 23 Dave Ramsey, promoter of the financial philosophy of being “Debt Free!!” and proud of it, had a nation­wide “Town Hall for Hope” in 112 locations in Iowa and thousands more nationwide. Over 100,000 enthusiastic Americans gathered to focus on their personal fiscal literacy, accountability, and responsibility, and discuss the current economic situation. Even more listened on the radio and TV.  The idea is that financial discipline coupled with long-term focus will pay off in large dividends. Every elected official in Iowa should have been required to attend. Ramsey’s definition of “Hope” is having a financial plan and following it, not counting on the govern­ment. He and his followers are about true change. 

Unfortunately, our elected officials have not attended his seminars, and understand neither “debt free” nor “hope.” For example, the Iowa City City Council recently voted to buy an $80,000 metal sculpture of trees for a field, instead of building and staffing a new fire station. Even real trees could have been planted instead.  They obviously have no idea who Dave Ramsey is.  Being debt free appears to be a foreign concept.  

Interestingly enough, State Senator Joe Bolkcom, Democrat from Iowa City, introduced Senate Study Bill 1308 this year, allowing for the imposition of a local “city” income tax, in addition to federal and state income taxes. Maybe the City Council is “hoping” for new taxes so they can fund the real needs of the community.

The power over our personal budgets and spending is still in our hands, but our power over our government and elected officials is rapidly diminishing, along with their accountability. We must hang onto both our personal power and our power over our government.  If you are also concerned, express your opinion, vote, and finally run for office.  We need people like Dave Ramsey in office.  Iowa needs people who work to pay off their debts and who proudly holler on the radio, “I’m debt free and proud of it!”  Then we need them to take that commitment and dedication to the halls of our government and make the same changes there.    

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute.  They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.

Deborah D. Thornton, Research Analyst, Public Interest Institute, 600 North Jackson Street, Mount. Pleasant, IA 52641-1328.  Phone:  319-385-3462.  Web site: www.limitedgovernment.org.

E-mail: public.interest.institute@imitedgovernment.org.