Do Puerto Rican Lives Matter?

In the last few days, stories about the death toll from hurricane Maria which leveled much of Puerto Rico reveal that the count was highly under-reported according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The death toll that was originally listed at 64 deaths is estimated to be 70 times higher or 5,740 casualties. Why this discrepancy? Part of it is due to the lack of essential resources like electricity and accurate mortality counts due to the widespread nature of the disaster.

What is less clear is what was the impact of the US government's response to the hurricane when it hit Puerto Rico. How was that response so different from the response in Houston where the response was much more in the public eye? Is it possible that the lives of Puerto Ricans were lost due to a feeble response or indifference to a protectorate that is "out of sight, out of mind"?

In December, Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló asked for a review and recount of the death toll, when a New York Times analysis concluded that more than 1,000 people had died as a result of Hurricane Maria. At the time he said, “Every life is more than a number, and every death must have a name and vital information attached to it, as well as an accurate accounting of the facts related to their passing.”

This week, one Democratic legislator, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), in an article from the Hill, is suggesting that President Trump should be held accountable for inaction which may have contributed to the higher death toll. Gallego said, "The Trump administration's failure to deliver timely and sufficient aid to United States citizens in Puerto Rico was an utterly careless decision with deadly consequences," Gallego said. "The Trump administration must be held accountable for their abject failure to protect and assist our fellow Americans."   

Gunning for Change

It is fair to say that for 2nd Amendment Conservatives, gun control is the "third rail" that must not be broached by anyone seeking their support. However, it may be surprising to learn that gun owners and non-gun owners do support several things in common. According to Reuters, researchers at Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland. have surveyed over 2100 people representing both groups and found they both supported  "universal background checks, greater accountability for licensed gun dealers, higher safety training standards for concealed-carry permit holders, improved reporting of records related to mental illness for background checks, gun prohibitions for those with temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and gun violence restraining orders."

According to HUB, the study showed: The policies with the highest overall public support and minimal support gaps by gun ownership status included:

• Universal background checks (supported by 85.3 percent of gun owners and 88.7 percent of non-gun owners)
• License suspension for gun dealers who cannot account for 20 or more guns in their inventory (supported by 82.1 percent of gun owners and 85.7 percent of non-gun owners)
• Higher safety training standards for concealed-carry permit holders (supported by 83 percent of gun owners and 85.3 percent of non-gun owners)
• Improved reporting of records related to mental illness for background checks (supported by 83.9 percent of gun owners and 83.5 percent of non-gun owners)
• Gun prohibitions for people subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders (supported by 76.9 percent of gun owners and 82.3 percent of non-gun owners)
• Gun violence restraining orders, which are commonly referred to as extreme risk protection orders or Red Flag laws (supported by 74.6 percent of gun owners and 80.3 percent of non-gun owners)

Additionally: More than half of gun owners, however, still favor several of these policies to restrict or regulate guns. These policies include:

• Requiring that a person lock up guns in the home when not in use to prevent access by youth (supported by 58 percent of gun owners and 78.9 percent of non-gun owners)
• Allowing information about which particular gun dealers sell the most guns that are then used in crimes to be available to the police and public (supported by 62.9 percent of gun owners and 73.4 percent of non-gun owners)
• Requiring a person to obtain a license from local law enforcement before buying a gun (supported by 63.1 percent of gun owners and 81.3 percent of non-gun owners)
• Allowing cities to sue gun dealers when there is evidence that the dealer's practices allow criminals to obtain guns (supported by 66.7 percent of gun owners and 77.9 percent of non-gun owners)

In what should be seen as a good common-ground for legislation to be formulated, there is nary a peep on the national level though at the state level some states have made progress on these points of consensus. Iowa is not one of the states where this data has been considered and continues to move to lessen controls on gun ownership. The question of whether a tragedy will strike in a nation where over 39,000 people die of firearm injury each year, but when. Legislators should be put on notice that inaction, where there is a consensus, is negligence on their part.

Significant Bombshell Dropped in Iowa Governor's Primary Race

The Des Moines Register reported three women's accounts of inappropriate sexual conduct by State Senator Nate Boulton who was within striking distance of the poll leader, Fred Hubbell for governor. According to the account, between 2001-2002 while at Drake Law School and again in 2015, Boulton made unwanted contact with the three women at bars in Des Moines during that timeframe. Boulton took the step to address the questions posed by the Register and said, "I don’t have the same recollection, but I am not going to offer any additional context to this, other than to say if someone’s perspective is that it was inappropriate and I crossed a line and I misread a situation in a social setting, I do apologize.”

With the election just over two weeks away, this bombshell could do any of the following things:
1) Realistically, it could scuttle the Boulton campaign. 
2) Act to push front-runner Fred Hubbell over the needed 35% threshold and thereby avoid a convention fight.
3) Light a fire under another candidate's campaign with votes coming from Boulton-leaning Iowa Democrats.
4) Less realistically, have the opposite effect and push Boulton forward by voters siding with him as these are allegations that he is apologizing for, albeit without acknowledging or denying that he did as he is accused.

One thing of larger concern, the Iowa Democratic Party can no longer claim a high ground where inappropriate behavior is concerned. This albatross will hang above the heads of any man left in the Governor's race. Of course, the Democrats do have two well-qualified women in the race...

KYN: White House Residents May Be Evicted By Mother Nature

I kid you not: The Hill is reporting that a small, but growing, sinkhole has opened up on the north lawn of the White House by the office of White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley. While there is no immediate danger of the White House collapsing, coincidentally, a similar sinkhole opened up in front of Mar-a-Lago last year. It can neither be confirmed or denied if recent moves by the Interior Department or EPA have anything to do with the earth opening experiences. Though I speculate that Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be holding a Press conference on the north lawn to update reporters on the sinkhole's status.

Update: The Hill reports that the National Park Service staff filled the sinkhole with gravel. Maybe less a sinkhole than a molehill?

New Ethics 101: Disgraced Republican Leader's Cash Goes to Shore Up Iowa GOP

Let's say you wanted to buy a used car and you put a down payment on it. Now let's say, the money wasn't yours to give, you bilked people out of it. Would it then be okay for the car dealer, who knew you  acted unethically, to accept that money? If you live in Iowa, the answer is yes. According to KWWL TV and the AP, former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Dix gave upwards of $522,000 to the state GOP on March 26. This was within two weeks of resigning his office when being videoed smooching a lobbyist in a Des Moines tavern while presumably, Mrs. Dix was tucking the kids in.

Under Iowa law, he could have given the money to political and charitable groups, returned it to donors or sent it to the state general fund. A fair question to ask is: did anyone bother to ask the donors if they authorized the transfer of funds to the state party? Did they ask the state if they could contribute it to the state coffers to help offset the 1.75 million settlement the state paid out for a former state employee who had been sexually harassed? Surely a home for unwanted kittens could have used the infusion?

No, but here's what the Republican party spokesperson Jesse Dougherty said "the money was raised to help elect and defend a Republican majority this fall." Good luck with that. With those type of ethics, how could things possibly go sideways. Oh, by the way, Dix's contribution amounted to nearly half the $1.2 million that the Republican Party of Iowa reported raising since Jan. 1.

Rent's Too Damn High for US Families!

According to a report on the CNN website, 43% of American Families are living over their heads. "Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project." The  Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE)  Project is a joint effort from a number of 18 state United Way agencies including Iowa.

Despite the fact that the US's unemployment rate stands at 3.9%, 66% of American workers are paid below $20 per hour including 16.1 million who live below the national poverty level. While our national minimum wage is sitting at below $8.00 per hour, is now the time to seriously discuss a national living wage? When hard-working families are unable to afford the cost of basic necessities, we are failing to make America by anybody's estimation great now or again.

Key Findings from the United Way ALICE Report for Iowa:

•  381,266 Iowa households - 31% - struggle to afford basic household expenses
• Federal Poverty Level indicates only 12% of Iowa households faced financial hardship - an ADDITIONAL 19% of households fall below the ALICE Threshold (meeting a household survival budget)
• ALICE households comprise between 21% and 41% of the population in every Iowa county
• More than one quarter - 28% - of senior households fall below the ALICE Threshold
• Over 92,000 households with children fall below the ALICE Threshold
• The average annual household Survival Budget for a four-person family in Iowa is $46,680, while the Federal Poverty Level for the same family is $23,850
• Childcare represents a family's greatest expense - $928/month for one infant and one preschooler in licensed and accredited childcare; $745 for the same children in registered in-home care
• 68% of Iowa jobs pay less than $20/hour; 48% of those pay between $10 - $15 per hour
• In 2011, 22% of Iowa's households had less than $4,632 in savings or other assets
• Total public and private spending on Iowa households below the ALICE Threshold is $7.2 billion
• 44% of renters spend more than 30% of their household income on rent. 

Iowa Progressives: Go Impactful or Go Home When It Comes to Governors

I have been a follower of Iowa politics since I moved to the state in 1999 and cut my teeth at the Cedar County Democrats caucus in 2000. No doubt about it, I understand why some folks have a love/hate relationship with politics. It is messy business when it should be about choosing leaders that exemplify our better natures. But here is the thing, we could end up with a known quantity who is objectively horrible in acting Governor Kim Reynolds, we could put up a slightly left-centrist to run against her, or we could stand up for what we believe Iowa needs in a leader. As is the nature of politics, the best-organized campaigns have a substantial leg up and, as it shapes up, there are four choices among the Democrats in that department.

• Nate Boulton: A state senator and labor attorney who is backed by labor, and a rising star among young Iowa Democrats, currently, he is trailing in the polls within his party and among all Iowans. He has said reversing the collective bargaining agreement is a key part of his run for Governor. Living in Des Moines, but raised in Columbus Junction, Boulton has the story that many Iowans are familiar with and comfortable.

• Fred Hubbell: Political newbie with deep pockets and the lead in public polls for the governor's office among Democrats, Hubbell has a unique story and brings the business acumen that Iowans are comfortable. He is Pro-Choice, Pro-Business, Pro-Iowa and another Native Son. He is for sensible gun laws given he was once held hostage overseas.

• Andy McGuire: Former head of the Iowa Democratic Party, medical doctor turned healthcare executive with Wellmark and American Enterprise, McGuire is for bringing healthcare back under state government and assisted by private insurers, is pro-choice, and feels that listening to the needs of rural Iowa is the way to go in addressing water and air quality issues. Another native of Iowa from Waterloo who has lived in other states.

• Cathy Glasson: Another labor candidate who is also a labor leader, but with a larger agenda that Boulton, McGuire, or Hubbell. She wants to make $15 the state minimum wage, she wants a single-payer public healthcare system, she wants polluters to pay for cleaning up the air and water quality mess. She wants to restore union bargaining rights, she wants to raise the legal age to own a gun in Iowa to 21 and wants to improve public education in Iowa. None of these are small things. 

The two other candidates, Ross Wilburn and John Norris both seasoned in the political arenas and more left-centrist (Wilburn) or rural-rooted progressive (Norris) than the above but trailing badly in the money game with no time to change the game. Their hopes lie in none of the top four candidates garnering the magical 35% they need to win the primary outright and force the choice to a state convention where compromise could work to at least one of their favors as either queen/kingmaker or possible Lt. Governor prospect. 

While any of the six candidates would be head and shoulders above Reynolds, there is always the chance that they will turn out to be the next Chet Culver, hurting the very people that got them there and being blander than margarine so as not to offend. My hope is that the Democrats choose to think impact over the lackluster "aw shucks, I'm just plain folks" approach that has failed them election after election.

I think that it is actually time that Iowans elect a leader who has impact in mind and is willing to work hard and connect with people to make that happen. For me, Cathy Glasson is that type of candidate. She swings for the fences in her goals and in a place where we like our field of dreams, she might be the right person, in the right place, at the right time to get it done. Of course, she'll need help down the line in the House and Senate, but that will come from the one trait that any of these folks will need to win, the ability to organize and turn out the vote. 

Things You Need to Know: Early/Absentee Voting in Iowa

Thanks to the Republican-controlled state government in Iowa, a couple important things have changed if you choose to vote early. :

• While you do not have to show an ID to vote, you do need to include your driver's license or other approved ID on your absentee/early voting request to receive an absentee ballot or to register to vote.

• According to the Johnson County Auditor's Office: "Under the new Voter ID law, early voters do not have to show their ID, but are required to write their Iowa driver’s license or non-driver ID number on their request form. Voters who do not have an Iowa license or non-driver ID will need to write down the PIN number from their voter card instead. Contact our office with any questions."

• According to the Iowa Secretary of State office: "The request form must be received in the county auditor's office by 5 p.m. on the Friday, eleven days before the election. If the request is for the general election, the deadline to request a ballot by mail is the Saturday, ten days before the election." In this case, it is by this Friday, 5/25/18.

Also, if you do not have a party affiliation, you will need to declare one to vote in the primary. This can be done on-site or made by completing an absentee ballot request which must be mailed to your county auditor's office.

If all else fails, you can vote in person on June 5th. If you are not registered to vote, go here. If you are, but don't know where to vote, go here to find your precinct/polling place.

The important thing: inform yourself about the issues you care about, think about who is likely to do the things you believe are right and, please, Go Vote!

Iowa the Clock Is Ticking: More School Shootings

This morning a 17-year-old, male student in Santa Fe, Texas armed with pipe bombs was armed with his father’s Remington 870 short-barreled shotgun and a .38-caliber Rossi revolver, a law enforcement official told NBC. shot and killed 8 students and 2 teachers at his high school. Earlier this week, a 19-year-old male former student opened fire at a public high school in Dixon, Illinois which fortunately no one was injured by, but was shot by a School Resource Officer. Last Friday, a 14-year-old boy in Palmdale, California with  an SKS-style carbine fired about 10 shots and injured another student who was later operated on and is recovering.

   In two of the cases, the suspects surrendered themselves to police and were taken into custody. The third was treated and remanded into police custody. With these incidents, 22 school shootings have taken place in 2018, so far or 1 per week. President Trump issued the following statement: "My administration is determined to do everything in our power to protect our students, secure our schools, and keep weapons out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves and to others. Everyone must work together at every level of government to keep our children safe. May God heal the injured and may God comfort the wounded, and may God be with the victims and with the victims’ families. A very sad day, very, very sad." VP Mike Pence said, "We're with you. You are in our prayers and I know you are in the prayers of the American people."  Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas released this statement, "Once again, our Nation grieves another mass murder. Heidi and I are keeping the students and faculty of Santa Fe High School in our fervent prayers."

   So far, the President, Vice-President and Senator's words and actions have been in direct opposition of what they have said. So far, Trump's administration has paid lip service to the lives lost. In fact, the President has walked back most every hopeful word he has offered to students and families of students, teachers, and staff who have sought action resulting in sensible gun laws being taken up by Congress.

But how about a proactive approach in Iowa? Will our acting Governor and future leaders have to offer up such statements to the parents of students, teachers, and staff? Or will we bide our time until such event happens here and then offer "thoughts and prayers" when better laws would have been more effective?

   It won't likely happen with acting Governor Kim Reynolds at the helm. Radio Iowa reported that she has said "the Republican-led legislature has already passed a bill that requires all Iowa school districts to have a safety plan and conduct yearly active shooter drills. As for new gun regulations, Reynolds is opposed. She said the priority should be enforcing the laws already on the books and updating the existing federal background check system."

   Senate President Charles Schneider, again according to Radio Iowa "said the Iowa legislature is setting aside $35 million in grant money to help schools pay for safety upgrades to buildings, like lock down systems or stronger classroom doors. But Schneider, like the governor, suggested new gun regulations are not on this year’s agenda. “We always have to take into consideration the balance of school safety and the balance of constitutional rights as well,”"

Climate-Controlled Congress

To say that Congress is confused about climate change is laughable. As The Week reports, the House team of Mo Brooks and chair Lamar Smith is so lacking in basic scientific knowledge, that they used the lion share of a committee meeting to discuss global climate change to have Dr. Philip Duffy, the President (and applied physicist from Stanford with 20+ years of climate change research under his belt) of the Woods Hole Research Center explain to them why they were misinformed (video) about the results of climate change.

Some of the nuggets that The Week reported:

"1. NASA says that melting ice is a main cause of sea level rise. But Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said Wednesday that the real culprit is erosion, namely from the White Cliffs of Dover as they collapse into the ocean.

2. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee chairman, shared slides showing that increased fossil fuel consumption doesn't correlate to rising sea levels — a view that Science noted "rejects thousands of scientific studies." Smith's data came from a single measurement station in San Francisco.

3. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said that the committee should "be open to different points of view" — including whether humans are actually the main cause of global warming, as the committee has accused federal scientists of manipulating climate data before."

Climatewire has more on the Congressional open mouth/insert foot fest.

Sadly, Duffy had a lot of good ideas that he summarized in writing, though they likely fell on deaf ears::

• "Accelerated deployment of carbon-free energy production technologies we have now, especially wind and solar;
• Development of new such technologies, as well as technologies for energy storage and transmission;
• Development of technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere;
• Research into geoengineering;
• Adoption of land-management practices that remove CO2 from the atmosphere;
• Development of improved technologies for measuring GHG emissions and global carbon stocks
• Accelerated research into understanding climate thresholds and tipping points, in order to inform top-line climate police goals (e.g. 2º vs 1.5º)"

Air and Water Quality...You're Fired

Pew Research has just released the results of a poll that shows that the majority of Americans believe the government is failing to protect the environment and specifically is not doing enough for protecting air and water quality, protecting animal habitats, protecting open lands, or addressing the effects of global climate change.

According to Pew, "Americans are closely divided (52% to 48%) over whether or not it is possible to cut back on regulations while still effectively protecting air and water quality. There are wide political divides on this issue, with roughly three-quarters of Republicans (74%, including independents who lean Republican) convinced this is possible but 64% of Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) convinced it is not possible." This divide may not be mended with reasoning, but restoring regulations and funding their enforcement may be a good way to ensure that things can get better.

In the meanwhile, there is some good news according to Pew. Republicans and Democrats do agree that more renewable energy including solar and wind power are part of the solution making things better. Sadly, there continues to be a vast divide around fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, in addition to nuclear power.

Trump a Lying Liar According to Tracking Poll

According to The Hill, thirteen percent of Americans said they would consider President Donald Trump to be honest and trustworthy and this is a decline of 3% from when the tracking polls by Survey Monkey had begun in February of 2017.

As the charts show below:

• Nineteen percent reported that Trump cares about people like them, a two percent drop.

• Twenty-two percent reported that Trump keeps his promises which is a 7% slide from the original poll.

• Thirty-five percent of Americans polled said they believed Trump has the ability to get things done. 

• 33 percent of those polled said he was tough enough for the job. 

• Forty-one percent of those surveyed said Trump stands up for what he believes in. 

Not surprisingly, the President tended to fare best with members of the Republican Party and fared worst with Democrats:

The Survey Monkey tracking polls were conducted between Feb. 1, 2017, and May 9, 2018, among 929,225 adults. 

Potential Iowa Governors on Parade

The six Democrat gubernatorial candidates debated last evening on IPT for 90 minutes. It was at times lively and informative. Themes that stood out, candidates were running against Kim Reynolds and running against Fred Hubbell, the current front-runner in the polls. Other themes were connecting with voters who feel disconnected from Iowa politics, the problems of health care particularly mental health care and health care for women, water quality, and wages and workers rights.

On the face:
 Former Chief of Staff  John Norris: Portrayed himself as the most experienced Democrat in terms of his political bona fides with experiences that span national and state politics.
Former businessman Fred Hubbell: Presented his family history, business, and philanthropy and volunteer experiences. State Sen. Nate Boulton: set his frame around the workers of Iowa both as a lawyer and State Senator.
Former state Democratic Party chair Dr. Andy McGuire: Made the case for her service in caring for others as a doctor and health care executive leader.
Former mayor Ross Wilburn: Brought out his 12 years in elected politics and his experiences in the Army, in economic development, and his diverse family and issues around LGBTQ.
ICU Nurse Cathy Glasson: Made the case for her working-class roots, a labor leader and being the alternative progressive candidate to the other five with the fight for $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care.

Priorities for each;
Norris: Fund Education/Reverse privatization, reverse tax cuts
Boulton: Repeal Collective Bargaining bill, reverse privatized Medicaid
Glasson: Raise minimum wage to $15 per hour, reverse tax cuts, "Iowans need a raise" to bring in tax revenue, "Unemployment low, but the Misery Index is high"
Wilburn: Mental Health and Education K-12, higher education, anti-trafficking, reverse Medicaid privatization
McGuire: Healthcare around Medicaid mess and mental health care
Hubbell: Reverse privatization of Medicaid on day one; fully fund pre-k and public education, reverse wasteful tax giveaways, unfunded priorities, mismanagement of the budget

All but Glasson for 3/8 tax for water quality funding; Glasson wants taxes on Big Ag for nitrogen, CAFOS, etc. Other echoed Hubbell in essentially saying "Water Quality is an Iowan problem" and tax addresses it for all.

Electability X-Factors:
Hubbell: (Hit  - Never elected, rich/out of touch):  Been all  over the state, better education, better healthcare, incomes go up; getting results in public/private life
Boulton: (Hit - too young): New generation of leadership, labor support, vision for the state
Glasson: (Hit - too liberal): highlighted bold, progressive women candidates winning, proud of attacks against her because of support of single payer, raising the minimum wage, and vision moving us ahead
McGuire: (Hit - Head of the party that lost under leadership): Upset over Republican agenda, worked hard to win as state Democratic Party leader but could not overcome the national tide
Norris: (Hit: Lack of fundraising ability): Running the gauntlet of other candidates for funding, if he wins the primary, it would be from fundraisers who support Hubbell, Boulton, Glasson
Wilburn: (Hit: Elected in most liberal town/county in Iowa): Wasn't progressive enough/was too liberal; Been in many parts of the state, rural Iowans concerned about water and making a living

More on the debate summary can also be found on The Iowa Starting Line website.

Pennsylvania's Democratic Socialists Have a Good Night

According to The Hill and the Huffington Post, four Democratic candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won their primary elections for legislative seats in Pennsylvania on Tuesday night. In Pittsburgh, DSA members Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato, won primaries for state House Districts 34 and 21. Lee's opponent, Paul Costa, said  “Their campaign did a lot better job of getting people out to vote. They energized a lot of people, and they showed up at the polls.” 

Meanwhile, in the Philadelphia area, Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale won legislative primaries for House Districts 184 and 168. Fielder does not have a GOP opponent in the general election, while Seale will take on Rep. Christopher Quinn. 

Arielle Cohen, co-chair of the Pittsburgh DSA chapter, said "We won on popular demands that were deemed impossible. We won on health care for all, we won on free education.” She further said, “We’re turning the state the right shade of red tonight,”

Sustaining Johnson County and the JC Board of Supervisors

                 

       Carberry                                           Heiden                                      Rettig

Johnson County, Iowa is a terrific place to live if you can afford it and, apparently, a lot of people can because the county is experiencing tremendous growth in the urban areas and that has strained the rural areas. Thankfully, our county has been proactive in preserving and conserving land so that people can enjoy the recreational aspects of our county, which contributes to the overall quality of life. At the same time, efforts are being made to introduce more people to sustainable farming practices through projects like converting the former County Poor Farm to a farming incubator.

   In many ways, our County Board of Supervisors has been instrumental in doing some of this, as well as the County Conservation Board and well-meaning others. And this tension between growth and conservation is not likely to be any less easy to manage in years to come. It is for that reason, I have endorsed Mike Carberry for re-election. I think that he has the right idea in balancing conservation needs with finding ways to pay for them. I also hold Janelle Rettig in high regard, she has been at the forefront of many positive changes in our county where both conservation and human rights are concerned. I feel like the two of them, while very different in the way they approached the Schwab property, were both coming from principled stances.

   I don't know Pat Heiden, but I do know what Oaknoll is and how it has swallowed up a neighborhood to grow a private enterprise for many, many retirees. My chief concern would be that she would apply the same growth principles to our county that she applied to managing Oaknoll and that would be detrimental to the delicate balancing act that is underway right now and will be long into the future.

   I firmly believe that managing the county's growth will be the singular most important issue in choosing whether to continue with incumbents or bringing in a new voice. I feel like this Board of Supervisors, which does not always walk in lock-step, will fare better with the re-election of Rettig and Carberry than to be without either of them. Neither are perfect people, both have been accused of being hard to work with and not always using the best word choices. However, both have rolled up their sleeves, gotten effective policy and practices through and have tried to make amends when they have fell short in the heat of fighting for what they believed was right. I can't imagine asking more of a public servant than that.

Vote for Michael Carberry and Janelle Rettig between now and the June 5th primary. In Johnson County, whoever gets through the primary most likely will be elected in November--if you need the motivation to vote in the primary, let that simple fact be a reason. For information about early voting locations, go here.

Justice is Not Being Served in South Texas

Years ago, I lived in Corpus Christi, Texas. I loved living there. However, from time to time I'd hear stories of abuse toward women and it was concerning. However, has time has revealed, voters in Corpus Christi voted in a sexual harasser to Congress by the name of Blake Farenthold (see flattering photo below). His old tricks got him in so much hot water that the Treasury Dept. had to pay $84,000 to one of his accusers in a settlement. Later, when it became public knowledge, Farenthold resigned and said he would repay the $84,000 and Paul Ryan believed him. End of story? No, the Roll Call reported there is more read on.

The congressman said at the time that he would repay the money to cover the settlement to the federal government but so far has not done so. But in an interview today,  Farenthold said he would not pay the money back despite saying he would. "I will say this on the record: I have been advised by my attorneys not to repay that," he said. "That’s why it hasn’t been repaid."

Because the State of Texas is on the hook for calling a special election, their Governor Greg Abbott has asked that Farenthold pay the bill estimated to be $125,000. Farenthold has declined to say if he'll honor that request. However, it turns out that the old rascal has returned home and got a new job. As the legislative liaison for the Port Authority of Calhoun County, Farenthold will earn a salary of $160,000.10, slightly less than his congressional salary of $174,000.

Despite this position never existing before, the new job was created because “Blake has always been a strong supporter of the Calhoun Port Authority and is familiar with the issues facing the Port,” a statement from the Calhoun Port Authority read. “The Board looks forward to the services Blake can provide in assisting the Port with matters in Washington, D.C.”

I've been away from Texas for close to twenty years, but I can still smell B.S. I am not alone, according to Roll Call, "Emily Martin, general counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, told the Victoria Advocate newspaper in Texas that Farenthold’s new employer should take steps to protect the women he will be working with.

“Hopefully, that very real threat of liability will lead the Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort to make sure that he does not have the opportunity to harass others, which means that those who came forward with complaints about his past behavior will have had a real impact and protected others by sharing their story,” she told the newspaper."

Waste Deep

Pete Seeger famously wrote a song called "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" about a bullheaded sergeant that dragged his charges through a raging river and eventually drowned for his efforts. Iowa is in a similar strait with CAFOs, corn, and soybeans. Because Iowa relies so much on pigs, corn, and soybeans as fuel for its economy, Big Ag has been able to decimate the water and air quality--thanks to like-minded legislators who have underfunded the Dept. of Natural Resouces, have written environmental rules and state laws that are preferential to Big Ag donors, and have limited the counties from having the authority to control Big Ag concerns in their backyards.

According to the Des Moines Register, "More than two hundred of Iowa’s community water systems struggle with high nitrate levels, periodically issuing “Do Not Drink” orders. The state is the second-largest contributor of nitrates to the Gulf in the Mississippi River Basin."  Also according to the  Register, attributable factors are:
"Drainage tiles, which help make about 12 million acres of Iowa land farmable, enable nitrogen that's both applied and in the soil organically to move much more quickly into Iowa rivers and streams.
Massive row-cropping, which has put roughly two-thirds of Iowa land into farm production, also is elevating nitrate concentration in the state's waterways, say Schilling and others. And the loss of perennial crops such as alfalfa in many farmers' rotation plays a role in those rising levels."
Where CAFOs are concerned, Iowa has more than four times as many large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as it did in 2001, and over the last decade has added nearly 500 new or expanded state-permitted CAFOs annually — now an estimated 10,000 CAFOs of all sizes. Manure leaks and spills are associated with fish kills, nitrate and ammonia pollution, antibiotics, hormones, bacterial contamination, algae blooms, water quality impairments and closed beaches and are a major contributor to the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

While recent legislation was designed to slow the roll of these pollutants, understandably not everyone agrees that legislation without enforcement is enough. Simply stated, the cost of doing business in Iowa is too high for Iowans in terms of health and well-being. Sadly, without a change in political will in the State House and in the Governor's office, Iowans are likely to be metaphorically submerged in animal waste and nitrates as we are "Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a tall man'll be over his head, we're waist deep in the Big Muddy! And the big fool says to push on!"

Inviting Reinvention

Frederic Baur, the designer of the Pringle's potato chip canister,  is not exactly a household name to most of us. However, as he opted to have part of his cremains placed inside one of his inventions, it does go to show that there is a good side to narcissism and upcycling. Maybe, just maybe, there is hope for Pres. Donald Trump. Maybe having a taste of doing real good, such as working out the release of the political prisoners from North Korea and taking all kinds of credit for it, is worthwhile for him. Personally, even though I will likely never see eye to eye with him, generally, I wouldn't mind if he succeeds at his job--if that means he stumbles into making peace happen during his administration.

   Realistically, he is likely to turn out like the Pringle's can guy and be a one-trick pony. And maybe, in his defeat, he may deliver to us something that perhaps can make America Great Again, a political movement that puts people before profits, reinstalls a safety net, shuts down the deregulatory carpet bombing that is hurting the environment and making climate change worse.

  We have a choice, in the coming months, to reverse the tide that swept Trump into office and possibly put a lid on a can where the chips are currently stacked heavily against us.
  

Progressive Women on a Potential Electoral Roller Coaster

According to an article on the NPR website, 2018 has seen a record turnout of women particularly in the Democratic Party. running for House seats. A record 309 women are up for seats in the House vs. 1,103 men. According to Gender Watch,  "27 of 43 (62.8%) women candidates for the U.S. House won their primary bids for office on May 8th. 22 of 31 (71%) Democratic women and 5 of 12 (41.7%) Republican women candidates for the U.S. House were successful."

However, as many of these non-incumbent candidates are also running in leaning to strong Republican districts, it does not suggest that a Blue Wave is going to be in the form of women candidates, though leanings may change dramatically between now and November. At this time, Gender Watch points out that only 2 women candidates are in a catbird seat, so it means that the other candidates will have to out GOTV their opponents or go home. Nonetheless, it is important that these qualified candidates are heard by a public who is wanting a functioning Congress. It is a long time until November and it would be great to see a more progressive Congress seated in January 2019.

Concerned Citizens of Iowa Say Get Active: Go to Legislative Forums and Events, Learn About Candidates

Concerned Citizens of Iowa's Action Fund has asked candidates for Congress to share their thoughts on key questions. If you are interested to know what they think, go here. The CCI Action Fund is an important independent political force that speaks truth to (political) power and drives the public debate towards populist “people before profits, communities before corporations” policies and actions.

Here are questions to ask your legislators?

• Will you support a moratorium on factory farms construction or expansion? Push them on clean water and local control.
• What are you doing to fix Iowa’s Medicaid mess? Share why you want guaranteed healthcare for all Iowans. 
• Will you block any anti-immigrant measures? Let’s make Iowa  a welcoming state!
• Will you stop bad energy power grab SSB3093 and HSB595 that aims to slash energy efficiency, kill solar jobs in Iowa and deregulate energy giants? We need more energy efficiency and savings for ratepayers, not less!

If you don't know CCI, get to know them here.

Trump Administration: Neither Legal Nor Moral?

During today's hearing with an alumnus from George W. Bush's administration, CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel, California's Sen. Kamala Harris (D), a former state's attorney general, asked, "One question I've not heard you answer is, do you believe the previous interrogation techniques [i.e., waterboarding at a "black ops" site] were immoral?" When Haspel equivocated in answering her, Harris said, "I'm not asking do you believe they were legal, I'm asking do you believe they were immoral." Haspel stuck to a pre-formed answer that avoided answering the question and the visibly frustrated Harris eventually moved on.

This back and forth makes me wonder what would happen if the President were asked a similar question about his administration's questionable ethics, the legalities of which are being studied closely by special counsel Robert Mueller. Imagine Harris or some other senator glaring across the floor at Trump and saying "Mr. President, I'm not asking do you believe the strategies you employed in becoming Commander in Chief were legal, I'm asking you if you think they were immoral?" I'd like to hear what he has to say on this subject. Ceding the moral high ground is not typically what politicians do, but as we all now know, Trump is nobody's idea of a politician. In a way, it would be refreshing to hear a sitting President be on the record in saying morality be damned--and the law as well.

The Petty and the Bitter

2016 to present has been a good time for the petty and the bitter. One look at the White House and those who staff it is proof enough, but when you add the voting block that made the Trump ascendency possible, you realize that there are many who have felt butt-hurt and looked for a champion of their concerns. For some, it was the feeling that equity and equal should mean the same thing and they didn't like that their perceived seat at the table sometimes went to people who had never had a chair, let alone a seat. Then there were those who believe that that American Exceptionalism meant they were exceptional and therefore should not be held to any of the rules and regs that the rest of us accept as part of our social contract with America.

But it also appears that whether you are known or unknown, pettiness and bitterness have overtaken the dialogue to the point that we cannot hear each other where larger grievances do apply. I believe that if you have been sexually assaulted and you have an angry grievance around that which society has historically been lily-livered to address, this should be the exact time to be heard. We have a political leader who was elected under a constant swirl of braggadocio in this area. We have seen men in positions of power and authority rightfully going down the drain for equally horrible and provable things. However, in conversation, men are feeling targeted for far lesser offenses including bad comic timing, i.e. things said to friends in jest, or growing up in a different point in time and (gasp) not being those same people anymore. I am not at all saying that #metoo and other righteous organizers are not correct in their grievances--because they are. I'm also saying that when we resort to dichotomies which are unempathetic and unforgiving, we give up the space for reconciliation.

Because we live in both a top/down and a grassroots "speak truth to power" version of democracy, the messages we hear are sort of set up to be rife with conflict. In a dialogue that intends to be resolution seeking, we have space both for speaking and active listening. At a bare minimum, the result should be a clear understanding of the issues at hand and a feeling of empathy, no matter how we may personally sit on the subject. We are not there at this time and it may take several years to understand how dysfunctional the American family has become.

Suffice to say, for now, agitation is likely to bring the worse out in us, left, right, and center unless we conclude that reconciliation on a big picture or even an international level is a goal worth working toward. We are all butt-hurt snowflakes on all sides of the political divide, maybe that is one thing to which we all can agree?

Not So Rosy for Pelosi?

Barring Iran's nuclear program becoming super robust in the next 6 months, the Democrats stand a fairly good chance of winning back the House in November. What could hurt their chances? A certain lightning rod many-term and former House leader by the name of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi, who for some Democrats is too much to bear anyway, does herself no good when caught in an unguarded moment says things like the tax cuts are "crumbs" to taxpayers. With Paul Ryan about to step off, the Democrats might be smart in doing the same in their leadership role. Nancy Pelosi has accomplished much in her time in Congress, but it is also true that under her leadership the Democrats have been not held the gavel since 2011. At a time when the Democrats could and possibly should be open to a fresher face, Pelosi has already gone full Charlton Heston and essentially saying that the gavel would have to be pulled out of her cold, dead hand in choosing to run for the seat if the Dems win in November.

Clearly, there are other Democrats who could do the job, but Pelosi is an easy target for Republicans to go after in trying to minimize the hemorrhaging that they are likely to experience with the high number of retirements which they have to look forward. If I were a Democratic candidate, I would be tempted to take a page out of the special election wins and put distance between myself and the old guard. As Nancy Pelosi said, "I think if they have to do that to win an election ... I'm all for winning," 

Consequences Have Elections

Barack Obama and Scott Walker have something in common. Both famously declared that "Elections have consequences" as they enacted policies that proved to be politically highly-charged. Conversely, those consequences often set the frame for the next election. In Iowa, Republicans benefited from the Red wave brought in with Trump at the helm and with the ALEC  playbook firmly in hand, they have decimated workers rights, reduced the impact of state regulatory agencies, privatized Medicaid, closed mental health facilities, turned Iowa into a 17 county/river-to-river oil pipeline state, and most recently gave t the most stringent abortion laws in the country. From their perspective, Heckuva job, Brownie, and "Mission Accomplished."

Iowa has also gone from having an elected governor to having two appointed acting executives in Kim Reynolds and Adam Gregg. With the Iowa House and Senate in firm control of the Republicans, they have had carte blanche to go to town on tax cuts and other pro-business agenda items, extending gun rights, adding to the pro-life agenda, and walking all over state employees' rights to organize and negotiate contracts. Under the Reynolds/Gregg regime with have seen a full-court press to showcase all the wonder job opportunities in Iowa, while simultaneously under-funding schools, universities, and, now, making the state medical school a back-up because of the 6-week abortion rule, essentially making practicing the full gamut of OB/GYN an impossibility because of liability issues.

They have made it impossible for counties to decide what the wages should be in their area, they have made it more likely that property taxes will go up around the state to make up for the tax breaks that they just passed through despite not having the funds to pay the state's current bills. They have made it such that persons with disabilities are unable to get needed support services thanks to a lack of not-for-profit insurance providers.

In the words of Professor Harold Hill, "We've got trouble, my friends, right here in River City." With the state Democrats needing desperately to get their house in order and multiple candidates vying for state offices including  6 candidates running for Governor including two women (Cathy Glasson and Andy McGuire) , one African American candidate (my city's former mayor, Ross Wilburn) and three White guys (Nate Boulton, Fred Hubbell, John Norris).  All of them are running with plans to publically-fund Medicare, improve schools, improve mental health, protect women's' right to choose, increase the minimum wage, restore the union worker right to collective bargaining. Of course, the question will be who stands the best chance to defeat Reynolds/Gregg. I would suggest that the best-organized campaigns at this time appear to be Glasson, Boulton, and Hubbell, with Norris peaking interest among those wanting a voice that scrapes votes out in the rural areas. Polling in late January showed that Boulton and Hubbell polled the best against Reynolds, but still lag her by 4-5%.

By mid-June, when the primaries take place. it will require that one of the six candidates is able to break the 35% threshold or the party nomination will go to a statewide convention. At that point, it would be up to party insider arm-twisting and gnashing of teeth. All of which would lead to some people wanting to go away mad. But hold the phone, the one thing Team Blue needs to do is unify to wrest away control of the Governor's office and hope that also rubs off on the House and Senate races, as well as the down ticket offices for Auditor, Secretary of State, Agriculture, and so on.

They have got their work cut out for them and will need help from those folks who can knock on doors, drive people to the polls, and so forth. It will be important that the Democrats seize on the fact that while their opponent wears the crown, it was handed to her, not earned.

Why Popular Progressive - Redux?

When I started Popular Progressive in 2006, it began with these words:

"Mainly, I wanted to create a blog that is open to disagreement, even within the friendly confines of "progressives"--because I don't think we all agree what that means.

I believe "Progressive" is making conscious choices that improve the lives of people and considers both the intended consequences (and the unintended consequences) of decisions that affect us now and our children down the road. I define these choices in terms of social, economic, and personal. Specifically, I define progressive issues around sustainable policy, that is fair to those affected by it, and results in fiscal and moral/ethical responsible outcomes."

After a significant hiatus and moving on to social media platforms that I found to be limiting, I discovered that I had a desire to fire up the old Victrola and go at it again. In these divisive times, I wanted to offer this platform for thoughtful posting and commentary.

As I said back then, "Progressive Politics has a ways to go to become "mainstream", but it will only happen if we can present our ideas and plans to people in ways they can understand. In other words, we have to make our case AND learn what the needs are of people that are not being met in today's political environment." Clearly, we have a Conservative Populist in office, in part because he promised things that enough voters agreed with that he won the Electoral College. I think it is fair to say that we could have done better.

When I started this blog, I voiced what I thought was wrong "about how political parties work:

1) People are not valued for what they can contribute to political discourse, but for what they CONTRIBUTE $.
2) Political parties do not reach out to constituencies that REALLY need political clout (e.g., the poor)
3.) Political parties build leadership through attrition--Darwinian "survival of the fittest" mentality.
4.) Political parties do not know how to "play nice"--that is make your point versus the opposition, but don't go to the lowest common denominator to do it.
5.) They mostly work by instilling fear about the alternatives.
6.) Political parties do not generally match people to their talents effectively.

I know I left some other things out and now would add:

- Political Party upper-tier leaders are in it to win it, no matter what and are no more democratic than crime families. Rulemakers run the show.
- Political parties are always using the grassroots to shore up the ruling class. You need bodies to run campaigns and therefore it is in a party's best interest to have a lot of competition at the primary level and rally the troops at the general election, as long as the grassroots go along.

Now, more than ever, we need to be aware of how poisonous politics can become on the electoral side and how much it can be changed on the advocacy side. I am hopeful in attaching the jumper cables to this blog, that I can resume a dialogue that I started 12 years ago. Because I think the true patriot is not the one who solely waves the flag and declares his or her pledge of allegiance, but calls out B.S. and doesn't lose faith in the prospect that we can continually form a more perfect Union. I don't disagree with the idea that we can make (or continue to make) America great, but need to improve the methods and mechanisms that can make it so.

I'd love to know what you are thinking about these days. In the mean time, thanks for reading this and welcome to (or back to) Popular Progressive - Redux.

Iowa Acting Governor Kim Reynolds Signs Most Restrictive Abortion Law in Nation

Moments ago, Iowa's governor signed legislation, according to USA Today, "prohibiting nearly all abortions in the state after a fetal heartbeat is detected, making it the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation."

Planned Parenthood for the Heartland will file a lawsuit to stop its implementation. As quoted in the USA Today article, “It’s shameful that when Planned Parenthood heard lawmakers were introducing legislation to ban abortion, we were outraged — but we weren’t surprised," said Suzanna de Baca, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. "But I think many of us still never expected that Governor Reynolds would so swiftly jump to sign a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional."

Iowa law has barred most abortions after 20 weeks under legislation enacted last year. This, in addition to cutting off funding centers for family planning, is creating a toxic environment for women who are lower income and have limited access to healthcare choices as is.

While not unexpected under the Republican-dominated legislature, the ramifications may be widespread in terms of unwanted children and exacerbating resources that are already lacking adequate funding.

Reflection Leading Up to Elections of 2018

On November 6, 2016, I wrote: "This [run up to the] election has been at times ugly, it has been divisive, and it has been exacerbated by sexism, classism, and racism and to a large degree, the opposing candidate has turned it to his favor in a P.T. Barnum sort of way. But when I think of what is at stake with regard to the Supreme Court justice choice, attending to the worsening global environment both in terms of war and climate change, the need to have a leader who can orchestrate a working government, to address health and social safety nets, in addition to attending to social justice and immigration reform issues, and it is abundantly clear that the two parties see very different paths forward.  Both candidates promise to right the economy and have very different plans to do so. It should also be clear that one of these candidates deserves the benefit of the doubt.  My chief worry is that it is being awarded to the wrong person."

The benefit of the doubt came and went. Despite the popular vote going to Hillary Clinton, the Electoral College added up to a win for Donald Trump. My chief worries, as it turned out were justified and then some.

As of today, the FBI has tapped the phone of President Trump's personal lawyer. The President apparently repaid Michael Cohen for a nondisclosure agreement with actress/porn star Stormy Daniels, a charge he has denied on multiple occasions. And this is more important to the average American than the possible withdrawal from a nuclear agreement with Iran, the fact that the EPA and other agencies have been repealing safeguards that further damage the environment and leave gaping holes in the social safety net. This is more important than whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. More important than the 20+ million people who lost their healthcare coverage. Not mention the worsening of US policy were immigration is concerned and the hostage-taking of DREAMers to drive tax and health care "reforms" through.

So far the bright spot in the narrative I feared is that the Supreme Court Justice nominated by Trump, Neil Gorsuch, is not as horrible as expected. So far.

The things I couldn't have foreseen, North Korea getting its nukes on, blowing up their facilities, and suddenly making nice to South Korea; a large number of Republicans retiring or being forced to retire due to sexual harassment or worse; Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states jumping into the fray; a couple of hurricanes that made things incredibly miserable for Puerto Ricans; and a revolving door at the White House the likes of which has not been seen since the Teapot Dome Scandal (look it up). The flare-ups around racism and sexism, while not 100% surprising, have nonetheless been nothing less than earthshaking.

On the other side of the coin, the Koreas are talking to each other, high school kids are driving a movement to bring something resembling sense to gun laws (and the jury is very much out on how that will go); the economy in terms of jobs is looking good. The biggest thing is that it may be a November to remember for progressives Democrats as the House may flip back to their control. Sadly, the Senate is not likely to do the same short of a complete rejection of the Republican party in their strongholds. More importantly, with many Governorships up for grabs, 7 to 12 R held offices could be flipped to D and some state legislatures as well.

The Trump effect, it would appear is more of a boomerang effect than a long-term trend. However, the lesson from 2016, do not count any chickens as a sure thing and GOTV.