Who Is the Party of the MOTR?

It appears from the conversations and so on that I've had with people who attended the Democratic and Republican Party district conventions that some didn't feel very well respected. Been there, done that. Political parties by their natures are fairly incestuous and are not really looking for new ideas, but rather new ways to sell the ideas they already have.

Let's talk about you and me. Most people are not party joiners, though we tend to affiliate to one or the other of the D or R parties at least once every few years. Every election we are told is decided by the "middle." And for this reason I would argue it is this way because the middle doesn't have a party of our own; hence the other two prevail.

Anyone who has tried to join one of these parties soon comes to realize that it is hard to accomplish substantial movement. Why? Because the parties' hierarchy know what has worked for them and, frankly, both major parties are arch conservatives when it comes to moving away from their sacred cows.

So why not just join an established third party? Once again, the doctrine is drawn. As John Mellencamp, Malcolm X, and Alexander Hamilton all sort of said, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." All parties stand for something, but none stand for what most people think is right. Hence we are a nation of flip-floppers who go back and forth generally between D's and R's.

Early in our nation's heritage, choosing between two was quite a step up from Monarchy. However, I think that many people agree that neither party really represents what main street or the mainstream think. In fact each party claims to feel our pain, but in reality, they are counting up our votes.

So why not join the Tea Party? Well, who is the Tea Party and do they represent mainstream values? According to the Tea Part Patriots' website they stand for:


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Up to point number three, I could get behind those principles. In fact, taken with point number two, we really can't have a free market. Why, because the Constitution tells us we need taxes and those taxes are haggled over by those whom we elect. A so-called free market can't exist as long as we ask people to pony up money to have a government do things for us.

So, no Tea Party for me, and I doubt for many folks who are happy to have trash pickups, clean water, aid to families with dependent children, social security, etc. Also for those who aren't willing to lose arms and legs working in uncontrolled manufacturing plants and don't pay a living wage.

So what would the Middle of the Road Party look like? Beats the heck out of me. We haven't had our convention, chosen our leaders, or created our platform. There is not a party and so the climb is long and the odds are against us.

If I were to venture a guess, the MOTR party would place the future of kids at the forefront. It would tend to be hopeful, but cautious in what this country does both here and abroad. It would insist that rules were enforced, but the rules were fair in the first place. It would be a party that celebrates pragmatism--where some change would come fast and others a little at a time. It would not seek to win by putting the other parties down, but to win by articulating the things that people believe are in the best interest of the country, even if they aren't always in the immediate best interest to themselves. Yes, it would uphold the Constitution. And, of course, it would be fiscally responsible.

I also believe it would be hard to build. It would ask people to disengage from the politics they understand to be how things are done and engage in conversations with people in a way that doesn't make me right and you wrong. It would put us in a whole new place. It would be a bold venture to be sure.

Corporate Capitalism Is Against the Greater Good

Everyone should know by now that Barack Obama is not a Socialist, not even close--c'mon look at the definition of the word.

Socialism: An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." [Rius, Marx for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), 152.]

No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, does this look like the country you live in? Does this even approximate the things that either Obama or the Democrats have legislated with or without bipartisanship? Not hardly.

Does it seem like the rich are being forced to sacrifice unfairly for for the collective good? Not according to uber-Capitalist Warren Buffett. Buffett told lawmakers that because of the cuts to the capital gains tax passed under former President George W. Bush, he pays taxes at a lower rate than some of his company’s employees and he doesn't think that is fair.

But let's say you think Warren Buffett, hallowed-be-thy-name, is on cuckoo pills. Just ask people earning $30,000 to $80,000 if they enjoy making tax payments; I doubt you would have a parade forming to beat the Buffett drum. Most of us see taxes as the cost of doing "business" for having the quality of life the average citizen of the US does.

If the Tea Party and other flat taxers want to get mad at anybody, why not get mad at corporate capitalists? The problem, as I see it, is it is citizens like you and I who pay most of the taxes and corporations who are supported by our welfare.

That's right, I'm saying that we the People are the "Nanny state" that is taking care of Exxon/Mobil and other firms who pay little if any US tax dollars. Corporations are the welfare "cheats" that we should be going after. The problem is that they lawyer up much more effectively than those among us who live in real poverty.

So while some folks bemoan welfare frauds and tax cheats and say "Not in My Backyard," it might pain them to know that they may be working for one. And, as much as some find it easy to blame the poor for being poor, how is it that we don't bemoan the fact that our tax dollars often go to encourage companies who don't pay their taxes to move into our neighborhoods?

In Iowa City, there are some who want those people who aren't carrying their weight to go back where they came from--well, isn't it time we say the same to those companies that aren't carrying their weight?

Corporations are like the "friends" that invite the group to have drinks with them and then walk the check. Corporate Capitalists hear us roar--No free drinks--tea or otherwise!

Why Mixed Income Housing Needs Our Help

Iowa City residents are rightly concerned that affordable housing policy changes could affect the quality of life in our community. Ironically, most concerns are founded on a misguided belief that balanced mixed income/housing stock neighborhoods are detrimental to overall quality of life.

This in the absence of state and national data that support such reasoning. However, by inaction, de facto higher density neighborhoods of concentrated lower-income housing have been built and this does have ramifications, as we have seen some Iowa City neighborhoods and schools.

The common sense notion is that when housing types are mixed, this lessens concentration areas of less than market-rate housing. Now add educational concerns that are being played out by concentrating lower socioeconomic households.

Would we really be having the discussion about redistricting if there were a balance of housing types available around town? Wouldn't schools have the mixture of all types of students that the district is attempting to move kids around to achieve?

Understandably, it has been politically hard to generate steam to tackle a public policy like voluntary or mandatory inclusionary zoning in earnest.

At the likely risk of being labeled neighborhood destroyers, can anyone fault city officials from removing controversial issues from the table? However it is exactly because of years of non-action regarding needed public policy that is more largely responsible for public outcry to "cease and desist" on some housing developments.

Enacting public policy like inclusionary zoning would likely reduce future problems.

In 2003, FAIR!, which monitors issues of importance to Johnson County residents, submitted a chart that showed a side-by-side comparison of how inclusionary zoning policy was enacted across the country and was used in work sessions by the City Council, in addition to other information that analyzed the housing needs in the Iowa City metropolitan area. In 2004, when the City Council tackled the issue of whether it was a good idea to spread affordable housing out and created a Task Force on Scattered Site Housing, one of the significant findings was that an inclusionary zoning policy was needed to be sure that high concentrations of low income housing would not coalesce in one area of town.

Mayor Hayek was the chair of that committee. To date, no action has taken place on this or other recommendations made to address affordable housing availability.

There are two significant reasons why inclusionary zoning policy has not been broached:

• It is historically unpopular with housing developers who naturally resist being hamstrung by regulation.

• It would cost money or other considerations for the city to implement.

For home builders to step up to create mixed-income developments, it stands to reason that they should be compensated in some way for their community-building efforts. There is no reason to ask the private sector to do this out of the goodness of their hearts. Through fast-tracking projects, reducing development fees and other considerations, a sensible inclusionary zoning policy would permit builders to meet their bottom line demands while allowing them to build the highest quality of affordable housing stock.

This, by all measures, would be good for the city's budget by widening the tax base, good for renters and homeowners who would have more housing choices, as well as good for the home building community.

If the City Council is hesitant to consider new policy and wishes to proceed with caution, perhaps a lesson I observed from following the Scattered Site Task Force could be applied.

If scattering housing is good for the community, why not empower the Planning and Zoning Commission -- or a separate appointed group made up of the community's stakeholders -- to explore how it can be best implemented? By carefully walking through the mechanics of what it would take and the cost-benefit of doing so, a policy that works for most may be put into effect.

Dear Mr. President: Learning from the Past

Image via Wikipedia

Dear President Obama,

You promised change and you have begun to deliver on that promise. By signing the Health Care bill, you have given people who have gone without health insurance the opportunity to be healthier and those who have been ill, the ability to once again have access to care without the onus of becoming bankrupt. And these are good steps.

Harry Truman believed that all Americans should have access to health care as a right and Lyndon Johnson signed legislation that allowed the elderly and the poor to have access. With uncertainties in the economy, it is impossible to know when any of us will be without work for extended periods of time. So thank you and Congress for making this first step.

Having said this, can a for-profit health insurance industry ever really sustain affordable health care for all? Chances are there will be future trade-offs to improve what has been signed into law. More important, will the need for health care providers be met and incentivized? Access to health care is great, but it also requires enough doctors, nurses and other allied health practitioners to be trained.

Beyond health, there is a general unease in the country. A general belief that we are in over our heads financially and, perhaps, politically. From the local school board to D.C., the message is one of "live within our means." The problem is, we as Americans have made bad investments--in the stock market, in banking, and in wars.

If ever there was a need for the type of leadership that people thought they would get by electing you is crucial, now is that time. FDR had it right with his fireside chats. He understood that people were distrustful of their government, but desired a personal connection to their elected Commander-In-Chief. In the age of the 24 hour news cycle, I do not know how it is possible to command the national stage like FDR did, but I do know that you can and must make every effort.

And you need support. I don't know why it is impossible for political adversaries to put party aside in doing the people's business at this very difficult period of our history, but it is clear that there can be no good that comes out of selfish, petty party politics. The same is true of grassroots movements that are short on solutions and long on vitriol.

The one thing that is certain is we only have one President at a time and that person deserves our respect regardless of whether we agree with all of his or her decisions. Conversely, the person in office must convey to the American people where he or she feels we are going and their roadmap to help us get there. You are a particularly gifted communicator. Communicate.

Musician Pete Seeger has a saying on his banjo that says "This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender." Those of us who value moving forward with hope need to be rallied to oppose those who are living in fear of what our country will become. The late Paul Wellstone said, "The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite." I think people on all ends of the political spectrum question whether this is the government we have.

I truly believe that those who question what has been happening in government mean well and are genuinely concerned for their and their children's future, but are allowing their uncertainty to cloud their thinking about what is best for the country. Ronald Reagan, for all of his faults, did one thing exceptionally well. He had the ability and gravitas to convince folks that the sun hadn't set on the USA--it is now your responsibility to remind all citizens that this is still true.

In faith,

Garry Klein
Popular Progressive

Future of Government: Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Where we have arrived as a nation is a disdain for the Government we have elected, appointed, and volunteered to be a part of. But really, is it in lousier shape than say during the Civil War? In reality, the times we are now are experiencing is a lack of cohesiveness about national identity. Resistance to taxes, the belief that the government is creating more problems than it is solving and so on are a symptom: we don't know where we are going as a nation.

In the good old days of manifest destiny, we could spread from coast to coast and there was plenty of reward to be reaped by all who were of God-fearing and descended from European stock. After the world wars, we continued our ascent through economic growth and industrial colonization. But with that came the need to underwrite favorable governments' leaders and prop them up with our military materiel and cash. And that was and is an expensive proposition particularly when you send in our troops to back up those leaders.

Our national debt has grown as a result of growing our military (roughly $800 billion per year), $$383 billion in interest on debt, and 1.3 trillion on medicare and social security.



This part of government growth we could call Intelligent Design -- simply doing God's will so that He/She would continue to bless us with greater abundance and allow us to be the great "exception". We would be the lantern that all other nations would turn toward, as heathens would turn to Jesus and our brand of Capitalism.

However fortunes favor those who have control of the economic supply chain and have lots of room for market growth--and that is no longer our strongest suit. We have to share the stage with burgeoning economies that are percolating in India and China and other places. Plus our balance of trade is badly out of whack as we continue to import more than we export (the trade deficit widened to $40.2 billion in December 2009 from $36.4 billion in November).

As corporate interests have paralleled government interests, one might question the incestuous nature of that relationship and wonder how government will evolve if the pattern continues. We have all borne witness to how the private sector has branded itself on public buildings and in government agencies. Imagine the world order if corporations are brokering deals between nations? Oh wait they are (See: World Trade Organization).

As both the left and right are becoming increasingly angered by the corporate and government pick-pocketing that they perceive happening, it stands to reason that there are two prime possible choices for the Government. Either Government reforms itself or Government represses dissonance. We will have to see how that "hopey changey thing" turns out. Of course, we have a lot to say about it.

Chet Culver Needs to Get Out More

While out of state in Ohio this past weekend, I felt badly for missing Gov. Culver's visit to the Hamburg Inn for a chat with The People. Having not supported the Big Lug when he ran against Ed Fallon in the last go round, I am not particularly surprised at the way his first term has gone. When I attended the Labor Day picnic and watched him spend most of his time pitching E-85 to members of local unions, I thought, this guy really doesn't care about his audience much. And, given his insular behaviors as Governor, it should not be surprising that he is likely going to be fighting the campaign of his life, if he is to be re-elected--and this is sort of sad with the stellar group he is up against.
But, as a Democrat in a state that needs to create and save jobs, Culver has been remarkably disappointing. First, because he has bitten the hand of labor that helped elect him (though very recently threw them a bone)and, second, by a lack of creativity to use the resources he has at his disposal to improve the welfare of the state. For instance, why has the "reinvention" of state government not been a "day one" priority? Why did he call for 10% across the board cuts to agencies when some agencies are of higher priority than others (e.g., anything having to do with human services)? Why hasn't the Governor negotiated with AFSME for salary cuts in lieu of forced-retirement? And in offering incentives for retirement, why hasn't the state at least required retirees to live in Iowa for the 5 years that the state is paying their health benefits?
And I won't go into the failures on agriculture, the environment, but to say that Culver hasn't lived up to his campaign promises on these two fronts. Iowa has massive potential to feed and fuel itself, but to do it sustainably has been the trick. Monsanto and ADM have done well for themselves under Culver, but not the local family farmer or those who would grow organics. Part of this, of course, is in part because of Secretary of Agriculture, Bill Northey, but the Chief Executive of the state has a lot to say about policy.

The Political Landscape: A Receding Hairline?

While glancing at the mirror the other day, I had the feeling that my hairline and the current state of American politics have a lot in common: hairy on both sides and empty down the middle. Yeah!--Huh? Follow along.

The real Left and real Right are angry and looking for leadership to help them coallesce. In the meantime, like my hair, they fire shots across the bow of each other. The central point of agreement is that it is all Obama's fault--either for not using taxes for the right things or for taxing them at all. In both cases, they are missing the point--left/right division doesn't get anything done, the Middle does. However when it comes to nominating politicians, the Left and Right know that's where they have a significant say and are actively pushing from the grassroots (or the hairline, if you will).

The Middle knows that there is something going on but, with trying to hang on to the job, the marriage, and taking the kids to assorted activities, who has time to pay a whole lot of attention? What they are paying attention to is the feeling that their lives may change--or not, depending on what happens in 2010--for reasons they don't quite get yet. They don't know for instance whether Obama is a "Radical Socialist" or if Republicans are the "Party of No," but they do worry whether they will be okay and their kids will be okay. The Tea Party Nation doesn't speak to them, but neither does Noam Chomsky.

Typically during the election cycle, the Middle does what I used to do with my hair, push it to the right or left for maximum coverage. I wonder if a real Independent Movement would be to go after the Middle, find out what it cares about and form a party around it? A real populist movement, not one formed by anger on the edges, but based on practical politics--a chicken in every pot sort of stuff. If this movement should happen, I wish it more success than my hair. But, I do know that my right and left hair-mispheres will not be coming together anytime soon.

Not Enough Canvass To Cover the Circus

Last night's gathering of interested folks at the Old Capitol Center to participate in the Project on Public Rhetoric Inquiry turned to be more inquisition than inquiry. The topic of discussion “Words Matter: On-line Postings in the Iowa City Press-Citizen” was the first of three seminars in the “Media, Space and Race” Public Rhetoric Seminar series.

Three panelists and the public were to austensibly examine an article that appeared on the Press-Citizen (“Curfew passes second reading by council 4-3”) and associated on-line commentary. No one was required to have read the article, and many, it appeared, did not.

As the panelists Jeff Charis-Carlson, Opinion Editor of the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Frank Durham, Associate Professor of Journalism, and Andre Brock, Assistant Professor of Library and Information Science framed the discussion around their unique perspectives, the commentary form the crowd was centered around the Press-Citizen's choice to allow comments on their website and the deleterious effect that has on the dialogue of human relations in our area. Some questioned the paper's policies to allow persons to post anonymously or rather pseudononymously because of the ability of those individuals to say whatever they choose (albeit within the confines of the "terms of service" of the paper which removes comments that aren't up to snuff).

Interestingly, not one person on the panel or in the audience directly commented on the curfew that the article addressed. Conversation focused on the relative merits of the Press and the commenters and bloggers. At one point a frequent blogger took umbrage at an assertion by Prof. Durham that online comments were "grafetti" and that bloggers are not held to the same standard as Journalists.

I will say that I found this part of the evening interesting. I have no problem with what the professor said as it is true that bloggers, myself included, could benefit from both a good editor and a fact-checker. Fortunately, in the blogosphere, the comments we receive from others often act in these two capacities. I know I've fixed posts when presented with new information or clearer editing eyes. I will also say that broadsides like Prof. Durham made are not likely to win any sympathy from people who do believe that the Press is elitist. I frankly appreciate facts in reporting the news that I read, even if it doesn't remove the writer or editor's bias.

I commented to the moderator that it was a good discussion because everybody's ox was gored, however I walked away with the same notion that some people have about online comments, what good was it?

Bawking at Mid-Term Caucuses

While a relative handful of people turned out for area Iowa Republican and Democratic mid-term caucuses, many stayed home. I was among them. In the past, I waded into the Democratic Party's caucus mechanism only to become frustrated by the work as it moved away from the county and on to the district level. For instance in working on the platform committee, I watched as agendas to remove women's right to choose were attacked by more conservative members of the party. I saw union influences that pushed their agendas. In fairness, I was a party newbie and didn't really understand the not so unsubtle nuances that play out by the true believers.

However, while I did not caucus, I do understand why the faithful do. When the party is not moving in the direction you's hope they might or when new issues present themselves, it is good that there are people who will act as the canary in the coal mine and raise the issues by presenting petitions that often lead to planks in the party platform.

I applaud those who work at that level of politics and wished that more would do the same. Admittedly my stomach for it has been weakened by my experience and has strengthened my resolve to work at the local level to improve conditions. However jaded I have become, I believe that young adults should particularly dive in deep in party politics. The decisions that are made today will affect more people tomorrow than today because it takes a long time for change to be effected.

Some Gitmo Detainees In For the Longer Haul

CNN reports that sources within the Obama administration are reporting that 47 detainees who are considered too dangerous to be released and unable to be tried because of national security concerns, will continue to be held.

"If you close Guantanamo but leave individuals detained without charge or trial you're just making a cosmetic change," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, told CNN.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented several Guantanamo detainees in federal court cases, blasted the administration.

"Today was supposed to be the deadline by which President Obama would close Guantanamo. Now it will be the anniversary of the president's decision to abandon our most fundamental constitutional principles, the center said in a written statement.

Amnesty International USA chimed in with a stinging criticism.

"If the president accepts the DOJ task force recommendation to hold anyone indefinitely, this policy will not keep Americans safe; instead it will ensure that Guantanamo will continue to be al Qaeda's top recruiting tool," said Tom Parker, Amnesty's policy director for counterterrorism.

Federal officials expect to imprison the group to be held under the laws of war in a facility in the United States. If Congress approves funding, the most likely site is a prison in Thomson, Illinois.

A senior administration official cautioned against concluding that all the task force recommendations will be approved, and said numbers that have been reported may ultimately prove to be wrong.

Sources familiar with the report said the task force has recommended 35 detainees face either civilian trials or military commissions in the United States.

The remaining approximately 110 detainees - most of them from Yemen - are eligible to be transferred to their homeland or a third country once officials determine they can be held securely in their home country or a suitable third country will take them.

The recommendations of the Detainee Review Task Force were received on the date Obama set exactly a year ago as the deadline for closing the prison facility at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. The administration now concedes it may be many more months if not longer before the prison can be emptied.

Why Politicians Matter So Much...And So Little

Reading that John Edwards finally confessed to fathering a child with a woman he was having an affair with while his wife continues to battle terminal cancer reminds me that while not many people love politics, they do seek politicians that they can believe in. John Edwards was the fair-haired candidate when he ran as John Kerry's VP choice and was a front-runner until Obama ran him over him in Iowa.

It was difficult, as a supporter of Edwards, to comprehend the depths he would sink in chasing his political ambitions. To that end, not only did he betray his wife, Elizabeth, but he betrayed the trust of thousands of people who worked hard on his behalf. Couple this experience with many other politicians from all parties who have operated in a similar matter and you begin to understand the problem of politics--the lack of trust that politicians create with their constituents.

As we are in a time when good decisions are important and we need our best and brightest to make them, it is very important that these men and women step up and do the work. At the same time, it is important that they act like adults and not like sweaty teenagers. If we hope to have better government, we need to have better politicians.

When voters become jaded to the idea that really hard-working public officials are out there, they stay home and leave the political arena to the partisans who are not invested in solving the problems that affect the rest of us, so much as working their agendas. We need and deserve better than this.

Free Speech Sponsored by...?

The US Supreme Court's ruling today to allow corporations and unions to spemd freely from their coffers to influence politics in the United States through advertising is nothing short of the worst decision ever perpetrated by that institution short of upholding segregation. The Supreme Court's 5-4 vote overturns a 20-year-old ban on businesses and unions using money from their own funds to pay for campaign ads.

The idea that corporations have the same rights as US citizens has been a bone of contention for many years (again due to the Supreme Court) and this ruling continues to erode personal freedom. The recognition by the court that these institutions are allowed to freely spend their capital to influence an election is chilling in states where corporations already have immense influence. The coup de gras is that The Supreme Court also said that any campaign ads that were not paid for by the candidate or their party must be clearly marked with the name of the sponsor.

I think that Justice Stevens in dissenting from the majority has it right when he said the court's decision "operates with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel" and warned that it may "undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

Check out this video from Free Speech for People.

I Have a Dream: The Party Is Over

In my years being involved in the political process, I believed that party membership had it's privileges. However today, I am convinced that while I can and will support individual candidates for public office, my days of valuing party membership are nearing their end. And this is why.

As any reader of this blog knows, I am a populist progressive. I believe that both parties are in dire need of embracing their grassroots and moving their agendas forward in a way that benefits people. As Paul Wellstone, the late FDL Senator from Minneaota said, "Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives." Clearly this is not the environment that we are in today.

I believe that the far Right has recognized this and it's Tea Party is a movement that feeds off the frustration that people have in mistrusting the government. Troubling is that the feeding of mistrust has burned from raw emotion and does not rely on much fact.

The far Left, on the other hand, is reeling in bitterness over helping to elect a President and Congress that may only slightly better than its predecessor on important issues. The left is not short on emotion either, but does value good information to make decisions from.

In following the debate on health care reform, it has become imminently clear that a world-class health care program for those without access will not happen and it is not because of demand or good information, it is because of ham-fisted politics. As long as those interests who fund campaigns and write legislation continue to hold sway, it does not matter which party is in power.

On this, the eve of Martin Luther King's birthday, I have a new dream. I dream of a multiparty democracy where no two parties can accomplish their will without collaboration from a third and/or fourth party. Said differently, it is in the national interest of this country to end our dependency on the two party system.

I have a dream that our children and grandchildren will support candidates from the Green Party and Socialist Party, as others support Natural Law or Libertarian candidates. I may not be there to see it with you, but I'd look forward to the seeds being sown in my lifetime.

I have a dream that a Green President will have to negotiate with a Republican/Libertarian majority House, and a Democratic/Socialist majority Senate.

My guess is it will create a challenging environment to get the People's business done, but I also believe that better legislation will come out of it. I also believe that people who have a genuine commitment to public service will step up and true progress can be made.

I look forward when the character of one's soul holds more sway than the letter on the person's voter's registration card. If we can arrive at a place where we can deal with our problems in ways that benefit people, we will be, in the word's of the spiritual, "Free at last, free at last..."

Statue (of Liberty) "Tory" Rape

The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the people of France to the people of the United States to mark the centennial of the Declaration of Independence and "in recognition of the friendship established during the American Revolution." As it turns out, "We the People" weren't originally so crazy about receiving the gift because we had to raise the money privately for a foundation on which it would stand.

According to the Ellis Island-Statue of Liberty Foundation, "Joseph Pulitzer (noted for the Pulitzer Prize) opened up the editorial pages of his newspaper, "The World" to support the fund raising effort. Pulitzer used his newspaper to criticize both the rich who had failed to finance the pedestal construction and the middle class who were content to rely upon the wealthy to provide the funds. Pulitzer's campaign of harsh criticism was successful in motivating the people of America to donate."

Fast forward to noted modern historical authorities Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin discussing our Lady Liberty on his show on 1/14:

BECK: You were — you bring up France — you were telling me before we went on the air stuff I didn't know about the Statue of Liberty and the
24 windows.

PALIN: Twenty-five windows. Yes. [This number is correct, There are 25 windows in the crown which symbolize gemstones and the heaven's rays shining over the world. ]

BECK: What is this?

PALIN: Gems, representing the natural resources in our nation.

BECK: Yes, I didn't — I didn't know that.

PALIN: Well, I had my son Google for me real quick. What does everything mean? What are the symbols?

BECK: Did you think there will be a test on this?

PALIN: Yes. I thought, oh, no, he's going to do a gotcha on what do those seven points mean and that's why I google — I had Track google real quick.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: ... seven points are just rays of light. They're not crown — it's not really a crown of seven, it's the rays of light. Did you ever see the Michaelangelo's Moses where he has horns? [Fact: The seven rays represent the seven seas and continents of the world]

PALIN: OK.

BECK: That's a misinterpretation from the Latin. It can be interpreted rays of light or horns.

PALIN: OK.

BECK: And somehow or another, they interpreted it as horns, but it's actually just the rays of light.

PALIN: Well, so full of symbolism, though. And those seven points represent our seas, our continents. Anyway, my son, I asked him very quickly, "Tell me what all this means." He says, "Quite timely, mom. I'll tell you what the Statue of Liberty means. It just got a tattoo of the Statue of Liberty on my arm." Thanks, Track, for letting me know that.

But I learned a lot about it this morning.

BECK: It's — what people don't understand about this is this almost a — this is France saying to the French, "We need to be more like America." [False: The French government was in the Third Republic by then, already having deposed emperor Napoleon III.]

PALIN: Yes.

BECK: And it's interesting now that we have so lost our way.

PALIN: Yes.

BECK: ... that we say we need to be more like Europe.

PALIN: Right.

BECK: What we ran from, we seem to have so many in our country trying to run back to.

PALIN: And you're right. Even the French recognized, too, the potential in this free country. And the French gifted this to us, this, in partnership, this international symbol of liberty and freedom — the French hoping that we wouldn't lose that and we won't evolve into something more along their lines. And yet, yes, right, look at this full circle thing.

BECK: Here we are.

Yes, here we are.

More on the Statue of Liberty's actual history here.

Viewpoint: The Johnson County Supervisor's Race

Janelle Rettig, Lori Cardella, and Jim Knapp are running hard for the Johnson County Board of Supervisor's vacancy. As such, the campaigning has turned bruising. This is politics--opposing ideas attempting to find concensus.

As a progressive, it would be difficult not to support Janelle Rettig as she is the only true progressive candidate running for the office. What makes the endorsement of Rettig easy for me is that she is the only candidate that has a track record of supporting a human rights ordinance in the county to make sure all residents have the same rights and has fought for sustainable land use and worked for well over a year to secure the support for a land conservation bond issue that passed with over 60% of the voters. She is not a "one trick pony." Add to this that she has studied, participated in boards, and worked for former Congressman Leach and dealt with constituent issues, she understands how policy is made.

Added to this is her commitment to Johnson County as a place where quality of life is part and parcel of "economic development." Taken on the face, Johnson County is the home to a state university and whose largest employers' jobs are in human and educational services. Additionally, it is a destination for retirees and mid-career professionals who seek quality of life issues such as good schools, excellent health care, and recreational amenities. Add to this a mixture of service workers from lower SES to upper middle class who see Johnson County as a more affordable, growing community with opportunities, then you could imagine the importance of amenities like recreation areas, trails, parks, senior services, schools, and the arts.

On the other side of the ledger as the area continues to grow, there are growing pains and conflicts in values. It makes sense to elect people who appreciate diversity of thought as well, and it is a compelling argument to say that a county that has had one party running the show may be seen as being insensitive or uncaring of differing viewpoints. But this may be overstated by those who see themselves as representing those opposing viewpoints.

Partisan politics means that elections have consequences. People vote the way they do for many reasons, not the least of which is they desire the same things that candidates are campaigning on. For opposing views to be successful, they have to understand and articulate what a majority of voters desire and run for office to support those views. Once elected though, those same persons have the responsibility to serve all constituents.

The good news about this special election is that there are two candidates, Lori Cardella and Jim Knapp, who express those opposing views and are campaigning for them. Credit should go to those who petitioned for a special election, and hopefully the state statutes will be changed or be made more specific about when it is appropriate to appoint or hold elections. Whether they are in step or out of step with the majority of voters in the county will be known on January 19th. But it should be noted that they are acting with the same sense of conscience as Janelle Rettig is in standing in opposition to them.

I fully expect that with a reasonable turnout, that Rettig will be handily elected and that it will remove the perceptual "whammy" that being originally appointed has created for her. As both Cardella and Knapp have committed to running in the November election, I sincerely hope they do a good job in listening to all residents of Johnson County, as they have said they would. Perhaps then their message of fiscal conservatism will have to reckon with a constituency that wants to maintain a quality of life. It's a tough balancing act, and frankly, I think that is why Janelle Rettig is so formidable an opponent, she understands this already.

But it is now our responsibility to vote our values and to do it between now and 9 pm on January 19th.

FAIR! and League of Women Voters Sponsor Board of Supervisor Forum

From Carol Spaziani, FAIR! Steering Committee member:

FAIR! will be co-sponsoring with the League of Women Voters a forum for the candidates running for the unexpired term on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The election is on Jan. 19 at your regular polling place. The press release below gives you all the details about the forum. We hope many FAIR! members turn out to ask these candidates questions on progressive issues. There are sharp differences among the candidates. Janelle Rettig is currently filling the vacancy by appointment until Jan. 19.

FAIR! has chosen not to endorse a candidate this time in favor of co-sponsoring this opportunity to hear these differences for yourself! If you are unable to attend, try to catch it on a local cable channel, and do definitely VOTE. Given the uncertainty of the weather, it is best to vote early. You can vote now during regular business hours at the County Auditor's office in the County Administration building on So. Dubuque. There will be other opportunities at Hy-Vee, the Public Library,the North Liberty Community Center. Watch the news for times and places.

The candidates vying for the current vacancy on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, Lori Cardella (Rep), Jim Knapp (nominated by petition) and Janelle Rettig (Dem), will share their perspectives and answer audience questions at a candidate forum on January 7th, 2010. The forum, co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Johnson County (LWVJC) and FAIR!, will be held at the Iowa City Public Library,Room A, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm. A meet and greet will follow from 8:30 pm to
9:00 pm. Refreshments provided by FAIR!

The Special Election is scheduled for January 19th, 2010. The shortened period for campaigning heightened the need for public forums, a need the League of Women Voters of Johnson County consistently meets in the community. The forum will be broadcast live on the Iowa City Public Library Station(cable 10)and rebroadcast on City Channels in Coralville, Iowa City and North Liberty. Allison Werner-Smith, a lawyer and League member, will moderate.

Voting on January 19th, 2010 will be at your regular voting location with early voting available throughout the county. Visit www.jcauditor.com for more information.

2009: The Year That Almost Is (Over)

It is a tradition of the Fourth Estate to review the year as soon as it draws to an end. It sells papers, magazines, and brings in muchas advert dollares. Since bloggers are not reliant on ad revenue, I will summarize 2009 now (not beholden to any corporate entity except Google who owns Blogger.Com. For all your blogging needs, choose Google).

2009 saw the first African-American President inaugurated and ammunition and gun sales skyrocket--welcome to "Change America Needs."

2009 saw a drawing down in Iraq and a loading up in Afghanistan. It saw a reup of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo still in operation.

Congress allowed the national debt to increase to 12.4 trillion dollars while 40+ million people continue to not have health care. The health care that is likely to occur in 2010 will cut that number to 24 million.

The Supreme Court welcomed a new member of its rowing crew when Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed despite the NRA, the Republican Party, and others who objected to her. The Supreme Court continues to function, as of this time.

Iowa saw its state income decrease 7.8% at the end of October and 6.7% of its workforce unemployed. The universities of Iowa stimulated the economy by using Federal tax dollars to encourage employees to retire early.

2009 saw Tea Partiers, Birthers, Obamafacists, and come together and Jon and Kate break up. 2009 saw "King of Pop Music" Michael Jackson pass away and Glenn Beck become the king of pop punditry.

2009 also saw Sarah Palin go rogue and Edward Kennedy go underground. It saw a Tiger and a governor lose their marriages and marriage equality to occur in Iowa and Washington DC.

In Johnson County, urban chickens, school plans and closings,curfews, and a bridge to nowhere (actually to Sutliff) were debated ad infinitum. To build or not to build led to the biggest voter turnout of residents in University Heights for a council election, while Iowa City saw the lowest turnout in twenty years. A County Supervisor's passing led to an appointment and a special election. The killing by a sheriff's deputy of a homeless refugee was ruled justifiable, but holding the man accountable who likely caused it was deferred.

Finally, 2009 saw people affected by job losses in record numbers, corporations being bailed out, and housing markets collapsing. So to those of us who escaped 2009 in good shape, remember that 2010 is just around the corner. Happy New Year?

Scattershooting About Johnson County Politics

So the two parties have had their conventions and (D) Janelle Rettig and (R) Lori Cardella are their parties' candidates. If there is any drama to unfold it would have to involve a brave soul gathering 250 signatures to be placed on the ballot to run a third person for the controversial seat. It would actually be a more compelling race if that would happen. Failing that, it will rely on the candidates to turnout their bases.

And what will happen come June? The seat that will be decided by special election will be up for grabs again. Is this an effort to turn out the base for the Senatorial and House primaries? I would hate to think that people would have ulterior motives--I'd be "shocked."

You never know who you'll run into at a pizza place. Mike O'Donnell may be leaving the Iowa City Council, but his longer term aspirations may involve being the next County Recorder. He was notably absent from the Democratic special county convention.

And what was the Iowa City Council thinking when they approved a 2% franchise fee acknowledging that they might be able to do without half of it? They have deferred action in the past, why not wait until they have more information? As it stands most of us would not feel the pinch of a 1% hike, but the University of Iowa and other tax-exempt entities will in April--unless the council brings it up after the new members are seated.

Question for Sheriff Pulkrabek and JC County Attorney Lyness--what, if anything, have you decided to do about John Bohnenkamp? You may recall that he disregarded a public safety officer's order last July (and his own wife's pleas) to clear out of the crime scene which may have contributed to the shooting death of John Deng. I seem to recall that there was a continuing investigation about this point that has not been reported.


And area State Legislators--why not look at taxing non-residential uses of condominiums for rental property? Clearly it is disadvantaging those communities like Iowa City that have large numbers of absentee landlords. $2 million dollars can help a city keep it's budget balanced without the residents taking it fully on the chin. Also, it probably is keeping apartments from being built which in less supply.

Runaway Iceberg Heads for Warmer Climate

According to CNN and other sources, an iceberg, more than twice the size of New York's Manhattan island, is drifting slowly toward Australia.

The iceberg, measuring 54 square miles, cleaved off the Ross ice shelf nearly 10 years ago and had been floating near Antarctica before commencing on its unusual journey north.

Named B17B, it was about 1,056 miles off the coast of West Australia, according to the country's Antarctic Division.

"B17B is a very significant one in that it has drifted so far north while still largely intact," said Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist Neal Young, who spotted the slab using satellite images taken by NASA and the European Space Agency.

It was three times its current size when it broke off Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf in 2000 and Young said it was one of the largest to be spotted so far north.

‘It’s one of the biggest sighted at those latitudes."

Scientists believe the iceberg will break up and melt rapidly as it continues its journey north. Before it melts, however, it could present a danger to ships navigating the region, Young said.

Kotowing to Big Insurance: All in the Grassley Family

With thanks to Peter Hansen for this information below. If there was any doubt that Sen. Charles Grassley has compelling reasons to deny a public health care option, the information below will certainly add more.

*For Grassley, insurance is a family business – two of his children are
on the payroll of the industry.*

* Daughter Michele Grassley Clarke is the Executive Director for the
Iowa chapter of the National Association of Insurance and
Financial Advisors.
* Grassley daughter Wendy Grassley Speckerman is also listed on the
staff of the association. [National Association of Insurance and
Financial Advisors <http://www.naifaiowa.com/about.asp?P=11>]
* This group is opposed to any public health plan option as part of
a national health care reform package. [Press Release, Association
of Health Insurance Providers
<http://www.ahia.net/newsevents/releases/20090420_php.html>, April
20, 2009]

*Grassley’s campaigns have benefited from industry largesse.*

* He has received $493,149 in campaign contributions from health
insurance companies over his career. [Center for Responsive
Politics <http://www.opensecrets.org>]
* His number 1 career contributor is Blue Cross/Blue Shield at
$81,200. [Center for Responsive Politics <http://www.opensecrets.org>]

Braley and Loebsack Want More Specifics About Obama's Plans

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) released the following statement tonight in response to President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan.

“In September, I sent a bipartisan letter to President Obama outlining many of my concerns about the situation in Afghanistan and stating my strong belief that we should not commit more troops to Afghanistan without a clearly defined exit strategy. As the Iowa National Guard prepares to deploy more than 3,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, we owe it to them and their families to have a comprehensive strategy that addresses fundamental military, political and economic challenges in Afghanistan and the surrounding region.

“I look forward to reading the specific details of the proposal laid out by President Obama in order to work with my colleagues to determine the best way forward for the people of the United States and Afghanistan.”

Congressman David Loebsack said:

“I firmly believe that we must put policy before politics, and I intend to hold the Obama administration as accountable as I did the Bush administration,” said Congressman Loebsack. “As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I plan on asking some tough questions during hearings and briefings in the coming days and weeks with our senior military and civilian leaders. Our servicemembers and their families deserve a thorough and accurate assessment of the President’s strategy, and I intend to make sure that they get it.”

“I plan to review the President’s decision extremely carefully to ensure that it supports our national security and lays out achievable and well-defined goals that will effectively deny al Qaeda a safe haven and allow our troops to come home,” added Congressman Loebsack.

Congressman Loebsack will be seeking some of the following details on the President’s strategy:

· Clearly laid out goals, a well-defined mission, and a rubric for measuring progress.

· An organized political-military structure within the plan that will fully utilize and coordinate our civilian economic, agriculture, political, and development resources with the military mission.

· A realistic accounting of the cost of this plan.

· A well defined plan to transfer responsibility for Afghan security and stability to the Afghan people so that our troops can come home. This includes a plan to help the Afghan government combat corruption and assume responsibility for their country’s future.

· A commitment from our NATO allies to support this plan with additional troops, civilian experts, and resources.

· A plan to work with the Pakistani government to further secure and stabilize the region and deny extremists who wish to do us harm a safe haven.

Loebsack Supports Fair Elections Now Act

Response from Congressman Loebsack to my recent inquiry about publicly funded elections which I favor.

Thank you for contacting me about the Fair Elections Now Act. I'm honored to represent you in Congress. Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible.

I share your concerns about the rising costs of Congressional campaigns and the potential influence of large campaign contributions. In the past, Congress has enacted statutes that have restricted or banned certain funding sources, limited certain expenditures and required disclosure of funds in an effort to enhance electoral competition and allow candidates to focus on important issues rather than fundraising.

The Fair Elections Now Act, H.R. 1826, was introduced by Representative Larson on March 31, 2009. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, which would establish the option of publicly funded campaigns. A candidate who chooses public financing would receive a base grant equal to 80% of the national average of spending by winning House candidates in the previous two election cycles and a 400% match of contributions that do not exceed $100 per individual contributor per election. In addition, this bill would provide broadcast vouchers of $100,000 and would also prohibit the candidate from spending funds raised from Political Action Committees (PAC's).

H.R. 1826 has been referred to the House Committee on Administration, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the House Committee on Ways and Means. Should this bill come to the full House of Representatives for a vote, please be assured I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing in Congress. I am proud to serve Iowa's Second District, and I am committed to working hard for you.

Sincerely,

Dave Loebsack
Member of Congress

Obama's Resurgance in Afghanistan

In an elegant show of reasoning and logic, President Barack Obama, with his security team in tow, spoke in front of 3400 West Point cadets and explained why he was committing 30,000 more American troops to the War in Afghanistan beginning in January 2010. Despite his reassurance that the war will be limited to:
• Denying al Qaeda a safe haven
• Reversing the Taliban's momentum to overthrow Afghanistan's government
• Strengthening Afghanistan's security forces and government,
what is being repeated is a surge policy. With the idea being to have enough boots on the ground to finish what has been, to this point, a largely unwinnable war, his hope lies in repeating the relative success that his predecessor's policy had in Iraq.

To his credit his plan has a timeline, but like all war plans, there is an escape clause depending on what is happening in the country when the withdrawal of troops is scheduled to start in July 2011. The plan also includes commitments from 43 countries to step up and support the effort, which is commendable if it works. Lastly, Obama pointed out that the extra $30 additional billion price tag per year will have to be paid for and that he would work with Congress to do that. With the current plans to overhaul health care and to invest in job creation, one has to wonder what will be cut to accommodate two wars that have already cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars.

As the President travels to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in nine days, one has to wonder if he should decline the honor. To accept such a prize under the shroud of escalating this war is tragic, regardless of his reasoning for doing so.

Krause, Fiegan, and Conlin: Grassley Challengers

To the point that Roxanne Conlin entered the race to be the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, scarcely a peep had been made by the state's newspapers about the two other candidates running for the Democratic nomination. Bob Krause and Tom Fiegan have been pounding the pavement furiously trying to shore up support ahead of the June primary for months.

To be sure, neither Fiegan nor Krause are as well-known candidates as Conlin who is best known for being defeated in her run for Governor in 1982. And neither are women, which brings excitement to a core constituency, particularly as Iowans have not seen fit to elect a qualified female to Congress--ever. And, if you saw Rekha Basu's column in the Des Moines Register, Conlin has a compelling personal story. Still, since there is so much time to learn about each of the candidates and how they would represent Iowans, it is worth the investment.

For instance Bob Krause was one of the youngest elected members of the Iowa House. He is the only candidate calling for a draw down in Afghanistan. He ran unsuccessfully for State Treasurer and he served in the Transportation Dept. under Jimmy Carter.

Tom Fiegan, a former State Senator who hails from Clarence, is running because "based on my 21 years as a bankruptcy lawyer and an economics professor, I believe we need to do something positive to create a job for everyone who wants to work, provide healthcare for those without, and outlaw the type of financial piracy that got us into this mess in the first place." Fieganomics, as he calls his plans to improve the economy for Iowans calls for using federal monies to lead to full employment, universal health care, and "banning financial piracy on an individual and national level."

Roxanne Conlin's bona fides include currently running her own law firm (she graduated from the Drake Law School in addition to acquiring a Masters degree in Public Administration), serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Southern District of Iowa, and being the first woman to serve as president of the AAJA (formerly the American Trial Lawyer's Association). She also tried the very 1st Iowa Civil Rights Act in 1969 and was the state chair of the Democratic party. She is running against the special interests and career politicians that run Washington and to help small businesses, creating jobs through alternative energy.

I'll be adding issue comparison's about each candidates in the coming weeks.

Honoring All Our Troops

CNN reports that soldiers who die by suicide will not receive a letter of condolence from the President Obama. The reason for not honoring military personnel? It is an inherited policy. The unwritten policy has been in place "at least since Bill Clinton was president," according to a New York Times article. With 184 military personnel reported dead by suicide in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 and at least 128 active-duty soldiers confirmed to have killed themselves in 2008, compared with 115 in 2007, 102 in 2006 and 87 in 2005, it makes no sense to dishonor their memories to their families.

Regardless of the reason for death, every military personnel deserves the recognition of the Commander-in-Chief for their service to their country. Contact the President and your Congressional Representatives to call on them to change this disrespectful policy. While you are at it, you might also ask them to stop putting our soldiers in harm's way without a good reason.

President Barack Obama

Representative Bruce Braley
Representative Leonard Boswell
Representative Steve King
Representative Tom Latham
Representative Dave Loebsack

Senator Charles Grassley
Senator Tom Harkin

Thanksgiving Reform

The day after tomorrow my wife and I will likely sit down to negotiate Thanksgiving reform with my Chicago-based father and his wife. On the table will be the required watching of a football game. In past years the football game has been widely popular with the Chicago group, but with one increasingly vocal dissenter favoring a non-football alternative--my wife, the holiday may be more contentious than in years past.

My father or "the majority leader" of the football game party, my wife, the minority leader favoring an anything-but-#%#%$#$-football option, will meet in caucus and hammer out partisan strategies. As I owe allegiances to both points of view, I plan to offer a pumpkin pie amendment that will stipulate that for the non-football option, I would be willing to give up my second slice of pumpkin pie. However, should the other side want to negotiate additional jellied cranberries to take football off the table, in addition to pie--I'll withdraw my amendment. I am open to a yam amendment too, but I understand the Yam Council is sending a lobbyist to arm twist me.

In addition to football reform, there will be endless filibustering between the spouses, who never see eye to eye on any issue (except for their great choices in husbands). No doubt there will be closed door reconcilation that will occur so that the holiday can remain peaceful.

Regardless of the politics in your household, I think we can all be thankful we have the family football to kick around. Because, while Tip O'Neill was close when he said all politics are local, anyone who has spent quality time with their kin knows--all family politics are deeply personal.

Wish me luck.

Senate Candidate Krause Calls for Drawdown in Afghanistan

From Bob Krause's campaign:

Speaking to an audience of Democrats at the Iowa Democratic Party's annual Jefferson Jackson Day dinner on Saturday night, Bob Krause of Fairfield became the first candidate in the Iowa U.S. Senate race to call for a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan.

"It is my view as a retired military officer and a student of military strategy that we need to disengage from Afghanistan because what we are doing is not strategically sustainable,” Krause told the crowd at a rally following the keynote speech by Vice President Joe Biden.

"We are in direct danger of committing our remaining uncommitted national reserve of troops so that we have nothing left for emergencies,” Krause explained. “Further, I seriously doubt that we need to keep the Taliban at bay in Afghanistan to secure our national security. We are putting large numbers of U. S. and foreign troops in the land that invented xenophobia. Unfortunately this troop insertion stirs the pot and makes the situation much worse than it needs to be.”

“I hope that, when President Obama makes his troop strength decision after Thanksgiving, he does not accept the advice of the neoconservatives, and instead does the prudent thing and closes out this war that former President Bush lost through inaction several years ago,” said Krause.

In extended remarks after the speech, Krause added, "Joe Biden in right on this one. We are spending $60 billion per year in the war in Afghanistan and 2 billion on Pakistan, even though Pakistan is strategically more important to us.”

“If the Pakistanis can control the Pashtuns within their own borders, it will have a very positive spin-off effect on the Pashtun nation in Afghanistan,” said Krause. “Insuring that Pakistan can continue as a cohesive nation is where our strategic emphasis needs to be. Having our forces in Afghanistan drives Taliban into Pakistan and actually helps to destabilize Pakistan.”

Krause warned that our trying to control Afghanistan directly with U. S. troops not only causes backfires, but it is incredibly costly. “If we put in an additional 40,000 new troops -- at a cost of about 1 million dollars per soldier in the field -- this will put the new war budget for Afghanistan at $100 billion,” said Krause. “This for a war that, even by known guerilla warfare statistical planning factors, we would be unlikely to win because it just is not enough troops.”

Krause also pointed out that this figure does not include the “80 year tail on government costs for treating the additional 10,000 per year Post Traumatic Stress Disorder cases that would likely come from the insertion of the additional soldiers.”

"Iowans need to call President Obama and ask him to listen to those who are urging caution, and not to those who want to continue and to escalate this strategically untenable battle," concluded Krause.

A former state legislator, school board member and transportation official, Krause has served as the president of the Iowa Department of the Reserve Officers Association and is currently chair of the Iowa Democratic Veterans Caucus.

Marriage Equality

A meeting at Peoples Church Unitarian Universalist on Saturday brought social justice activists from liberal faith communities in Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, and Iowa City together to discuss what can be done to support continued Marriage Equality in Iowa. State Senator Bob Dvorsky assured the group that the Iowa Senate would not allow amendments to be attached to bills that would change the current law that allows for same-sex marriages to occur.

Nonetheless, he did say that forces could move through the Iowa House to attempt to bring the issue to a state constitutional convention. However, he was clear that the Democratic leadership would not be supportive of such a push. He did say that proponents for Marriage Equality should not be complacent.

A lobby day will be coming up on February 11, 2010 to talk with House and Senate representatives and make the case that civil Marriage Equality is good for Iowa regardless of religious leanings. OneIowa and the Interfaith Alliance are working within communities to educate the public on the issues.

What The Corridor Can Learn From New Orleans

When Hurricane Katrina unleashed its fury, it was largely blamed for the monumental damage that followed in New Orleans and its neighbors. Further evidence showed that the failure of the levees were to blame and that the Army Corp of Engineers who manage those levees failed to upgrade them despite reports that the levees were sorely in need of shoring up.

The Corridor and particularly Iowa City and Coralville have relied on the Army Corp of Engineers to manage the waterflow at the Coralville Dam. As we learned, the slowness in releasing the water may have contributed to a lot of the flooding that happened in the area. It is hoped that the improvements that are being planned to improve Park Road bridge and other plans will lead to long-term solutions. additionally, it is hoped that the Army Corp of Engineers have learned from the past and will regulate water flow better in the future.

Perhaps Corridor leaders should consider the measure that the New Orleans City Council did. See the video below.

We Represent the Lollipop Kids?

I appreciate the efforts that were made to create the environment for a special Johnson County board of supervisors election, as I support transparency and openness where government is concerned. However, I have to admit when I learned from the Daily Iowan that proponents for the special election were giving out lollipops as a reward for signatures, I found it hugely hysterical. It reminded me of when George Etre was running for Iowa City City Council and he was giving free drinks away to sign his petition to qualify. It kind of dilutes the message when it appears that a "token" is given for something that really shouldn't need any encouragement. I found it particularly tickling to then hear that many of these same students have no plans to vote in the special election. How mercenary is that?

As for the next steps regarding the county supervisor race, each political party will nominate one candidate for the election; and any additional independent candidates would have to garner 250 signatures on a petition to be on the ballot. It is my sincere hope that if anyone who feels their viewpoint is not addressed by either party will go solicit the 250 signatures. Because at the end of the day, the real argument is not whether we have a Democrat or a Republican representing us, but whether we have people with good ideas willing to commit their time to do the job.

For the record, I feel like Jannelle Rettig is a good choice and I think a special election will reiterate this. However, the value of elections, beyond who is running for offices, is the free flow of ideas about what citizens believe their government and communities priorities ought to be and for the offering of solutions to address the problems that concern us all.

Special County Election Will Happen

Advocates for a special election to occur to replace the late Larry Meyers and to challenge the seating of appointed County Supervisor Janelle Rettig by special committee have apparently gathered over 8000 signatures which were presented to the Johnson County Clerk's office this afternoon. After the abysmal turnouts for city council races less than two weeks ago, it is hoped that the petitioners will do the service of actually voting in the special election.

Also of interest, staunch Republican supporter Lori Cardella is suggesting she may step forward to run for the office according to the Coralville Courier. I am looking forward to the prospect, as I think it will create the environment for the values of Johnson County to present themselves at the polls.

Janelle Rettig, who has been in campaign mode since last year, will need to be nominated by Johnson County Democrats by county convention according to the their last month meeting notes and Cardella would likely have to be nominated by the Johnson County Republicans also by convention.

According to the auditor's website the rules of going forward are:

Meyers' term was scheduled to run through December 31, 2010. The appointment will run through the canvass of the the November 2, 2010 general election, unless the public petitions for a special election. The petition would require 7,299 signatures (10 percent of the presidential vote in the 2008 general election). The deadline for a petition is November 13, 2009, 14 days after the appointment.

Two supervisors will be elected to four year terms in the November 2, 2010 general election. Following the canvass of votes from the November 2010 election (on November 8 or 9, 2010), an elected supervisor will immediately take office.

Stimulus Monies Shore Up Safety Net on Iowa's Medicaid Recipients

The Iowa Policy Project reports that the stimulus monies used for Medicaid in Iowa have been paying dividends. For every $1 that the state puts in, $1.70 is matched by the Federal government. The ARRA legislation includes certain “triggers” built in for the extra FMAP percentage increases, based on changes in state unemployment rates. Note that as more people have become unemployed that there is a proportional increase in Medicaid enrollment. When Iowa’s three-month average unemployment rate topped 5.2 percent in April, May and June 2009, the state qualified for an additional FMAP increase of about 1.9 percent, bringing the total Federal Matching Assistance Percentage to nearly 71 percent. Due to this raised matching rate, the federal government contributes about $2.42 for every dollar Iowa spends on Medicaid through October 2011.

Here are some interesting factoids about Medicaid courtesy of the IPP

Medicaid: Iowa’s Health Care
Safety Net
 In May 2009, Medicaid
provided essential health
care coverage for 410,857
state residents, or nearly 1
in 7 Iowans.

 Between October 2007 and
May 2009, Iowa’s Medicaid
enrollment increased by 13
percent. Children make up
the fastest growing
population of Medicaid
enrollees.

 54 percent of Iowa’s
Medicaid recipients are
children, a total enrollment
of 221,863 in May 2009.
However children
accounted for only 17
percent of Medicaid
expenditures in 2008.

 Elderly and disabled
populations together
comprise about 30 percent
of recipients, but account for
nearly 72 percent of
Medicaid expenditures.
This is largely due to the
high cost of prescription
drugs, home-based and
community-based services,
and nursing home care.

Too Big to Fail: Sanders Says "Break These Babies Up"

Sen. Bernie Sanders makes some very good points. Whether you agree with his assessment that the "to big to fail" companies need to be broken up, the point that these companies are costing us all is irrefutable.

More than a year has gone by since Congress passed the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. The Federal Reserve has committed trillions of additional dollars in virtually zero-interest loans and other assistance to large financial institutions resulting in the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world.

President Bush and Ben Bernanke told us we needed to bail out Wall Street because we could not allow big financial institutions and insurance giants to fail because if they failed it would have led to the collapse of the U.S. and global economies.

Today, most of the huge financial institutions still standing have become even bigger — so big that the four largest banks in America (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) now issue one out of every two mortgages; two out of three credit cards; and hold $4 out of every $10 in bank deposits in the entire country.

If any of these financial institutions were to get into major trouble again, taxpayers would be on the hook for another massive bailout. We cannot let that happen. We need to do exactly what Teddy Roosevelt did back in the trust-busting days and break up these big banks.

That is why I introduced legislation that would give the Secretary of the Treasury 90 days to identify every single financial institution and insurance company in this country that is too big to fail and to break up those institutions within one year.

If it’s too big to fail, it’s too big to exist.

Rental Help Available for Iowans

I received this from State Representative Vicki Lensing:

As part of the federal economic recovery program, Iowa has received $11 million to help qualified Iowa renters pay their rental and utility bills. To qualify, you must be at risk of homelessness and your income must be at or below 50% of the local area median income, although in some areas of the state, the criterion is stricter.
The program, called Iowa Rental Help, can help current renters, and families and homeowners who are moving into rental properties. The homeless are also eligible for help. The goal is to help recipients gain stability and adequate housing.
Iowa Rental Help can provide qualified Iowa renters with rent and utility payments for up to 18 months (including up to six months in arrears), moving expenses, security deposits, rental deposits,and more.
When individuals contact Iowa Rental Help, they will be connected with a case manager to determine whether they qualify. If so, the case manager will help develop a plan that will best benefit them. The case manager will also meet with them every six months to reassess the situation. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development administers the program nationally; the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) administers the program in Iowa. For more information on the program, Iowans can call 877.386.9104, visit www.IowaRentalHelp.com, or text RENT to 30644.
A large number of calls have been coming into the program and Iowans should expect some delays in speaking to a case manager.

City Council Election: A Sleeper and A Squeaker

Today's Iowa City election netted the lowest turnout since 1985. The Iowa City precincts during September's school board election reported 4,394 voters at the polls, while the City Council election today saw 4,682 voters turn out. As expected Susan Mims and Terry Dickens won the at-large race with 75% and 70% of the vote over The University of Iowa students Dan Tallon and Jeff Shipley. Mark McCallum gave Connie Champion the closest race she has ever had in her four elections as Champion narrowly defeated McCallum by 172 votes.

Gitmo Detainees: Where Are They Now?

One of the earliest Obama pledges was to close the detention camp at Guantanamo. After Congress moved to block any Guantanamo detainee from entering the United States, the courts appear to be relocating the detainees to exotic places like Herzagovinia, Palau, and Chad.

Chisun Lee wrote this as an Op-Ed for the NY Times:

As the Obama administration and Congress try to forge a legal framework for detaining suspected terrorists, they might want to take a close look at what's happening at the federal district courthouse just a short walk down Pennsylvania Avenue from both the White House and the Capitol.

Trial judges there have quietly decided 31 of some 200 cases brought by Guantánamo inmates seeking freedom. Dossier by dossier, the jurists have answered the core questions that policy experts have been addressing in theory: When can the president place someone in preventive detention, and how solid does the evidence need to be?

President Obama, like George W. Bush before him, has claimed the power to detain not only Qaeda and Taliban members, but also those who "support" them. Last year the Supreme Court ruled [2] (PDF) that the courts can scrutinize these detention decisions and overturn them if they are invalid. But the court didn't say exactly what a valid detention looks like, and Congress hasn't stepped in to make it clear.

Nonprofit news source Propublica, has a chart of where 36 of the, as of January 17, 2009, approximately 245 detainees have ended up. Here is what happened to detainees prior to 2009.

It's a Beautiful Day to Exercise Your Vote For Nobody

Some and John Deeth are predicting a miserable voter turnout for the elections in Johnson County. I don't much care what people plan to do, the right to vote or not vote is "democratic" in the literal sense. My hope is that after the dust clears, folks will figure out how their vote woulda, coulda, shoulda mattered, had they informed themselves about the consequences of their inaction.

Generally when people don't vote, it is because they don't see much difference between the leading candidates (sorry Susan and Terry, but blue and white or white and blue signs are not much of a difference maker) or they are so burnt out on all things political that they leave it to the habitual voter to make the decision for them.

Frankly the races in Coralville and University Heights have more riding on them than the Iowa City race because there are clear demarcations of differences on community growth in the UH race and Coralville now has the issue of what happens if Mayor Jim Fausett has to step down because of his health. Iowa City has so little at stake to the average lethargic voter that it is possible that Sara Baird could actually edge out one or both of the students running as a write-in candidate.

The game changer in IC could be if voters accidentally stumble into a voting booth and decide to exercise their privilege by turning in a blank slate. Sometimes a recorded vote for nobody is the best vote of all. It would be extremely amusing to learn that nobody won the IC at-large race. But that isn't likely to happen. Tomorrow's headline-- "A Victory for Apathy."