| February 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
|
Tuesday, February 22
John Drury: "Reinventing" Government
by
John Drury
on Tue 22 Feb 2005 03:55 PM CST
 "Reinventing" Government
by John Drury
There’s
been a great deal of talk at the statehouse these days about
reinventing our local governments and reforming our property tax
system. A local government tax reform committee with 12 legislators has
been formed and they are meeting weekly with the Governor working on
creating significant changes to the way our governments do business in
Iowa.
I’ve
always been somewhat fascinated by the terms “reinventing government”
and “thinking outside the box” when it comes to governments providing
services to the citizens. The question, “how many ways are there to
plow the snow off of a city street?” comes to mind.
The
committee is being cautious about using the word consolidation when it
comes to local governments, and especially cautious when they use that
word about our schools. That word has been replaced by
“regionalization”. (Which, by the way, my spell checker doesn’t see as
a word.)
This is
understandable; as legislators know, the people generally do not want
consolidation and they may very well not want regionalization either.
Surveys have shown that they want local governments to work for them
and with them, they want to have a say in the decisions that are made.
If their taxes are going up, or services are being cut, they want the
opportunity to attend a city council meeting to let them know what they
think. If the county roads they travel every day to get to work are in
disrepair, they want to be able to go to the county supervisors and
make a case for their repair.
I’ve
always maintained that government is not always going to be efficient.
The government is there to protect and work for the public. If it’s
inefficient but works for the people, then so be it. Local government
is the best government.
So I
urge the legislative panel to be very careful when they tread these
waters of how local governments should operate. And more importantly,
they should not forget the reasons for this “reinvention.” We are
reinventing government because of the dilemma in our state of dwindling
populations and the infamous brain drain. In fact, many of the
decisions made in the past few years have led to the de-population of
Iowa, especially rural Iowa. They have taken away local control on
issues that affect our quality of life and have in effect, legislated a
civil war on such issues as hog confinements, pitting neighbor against
neighbor. The list of polluted waters in our state has increased and we
sock our kids with enormous student loan debt forcing them to leave the
state for higher paying jobs and a better quality of life.
In north
Iowa, one could say that regionalization means taking several small
communities and combining them into a single unit of government that
will work for the entire region. It means that the small towns will
stop competing with each other and work together, hoping that if one of
them prospers, they may all share in that glory. All of those things
certainly sound rosy but it also may mean fewer services to those in
the area.
If two
small towns unincorporate and allow the county to operate their
government, what will that scenario look like? Well, chances are each
town has at the very least a Fire Dept., a Police Dept., a public
library, and perhaps a community hall. It’s somewhat doubtful that the
county will be interested in funding all of these services, so who gets
the axe? Again, the civil war analogy comes into play.
If the
reasons behind “regionalization” and “reinventing government” are to
create a better way of providing the same level of services currently
provided, that’s fine, let’s have a look. But if it’s to further enable
the lack of any real economic development strategy in rural Iowa, it’s
unacceptable. If it’s to enable the loss of our small towns and our
quality of life, it’s unacceptable. And if this panel is thinking that
all government can and will someday be efficient, they are wasting
their time.
Tuesday, February 15
John Drury: The Dream Behind The DNC Election
by
John Drury
on Tue 15 Feb 2005 06:44 PM CST
The Dream Behind The DNC Election
by John Drury
Not surprisingly, this blog has had its share of articles this
past week on Governor Dean’s election as Chairman of the Democratic
National Committee.
There’s
no doubt the party needed new leadership and while I think the Governor
has an outstanding ability to lead and will bring a fresh look to the
job, I think it’s more important to be ever mindful of his message.
Governor
Dean spoke of the people. He said that the people could stand up, take
back their country from the corporate giants and once again be a
government of the people. I don’t recall him saying if elected, that he
could do this alone. He always emphasized that the people have the
power to do this and I think that is what we should keep front and
center in our minds as we move to the mid-term elections in 2006 and
beyond.
Governor
Dean inspired millions of people with his message. The people in this
country do have the power to take back their country—but no matter who
leads our party, if we continue as we have been, it will not happen.
During
my campaign for the Iowa Senate, we made the case for a better north
Iowa. We made the case that we could beat an incumbent with a record of
inactivity matched only by five other Senators. We made the case that
we could win the election with strong grassroots campaigning and about
half the amount of money that is typically spent in an Iowa Senate
campaign. We knocked on thousands of doors, and we ran a positive
campaign on the issues. We did all of these things and yet we still
lost.
I can
remember the early days of the campaign. We held committee meetings and
only a few party faithfuls would show up. We expressed hope that Bush
and his scorched earth policies would certainly make this the year of
the Democrats down the line and with the idea that people would
eventually come out of the woodwork to help in this campaign. I didn’t
worry too much about the light attendance early on, but I can
remember saying that if we had this turnout at an October meeting, we
would be in trouble.
The
truth is, the people didn’t come out. In fact, we struggled to find
people to hold key positions in the campaign. Darrell Lewis was
campaign chair, treasurer, and webmaster all wrapped into one very
efficient package.
Don’t
get me wrong, the support we did have was very much appreciated, and I
met a lot of great people. And I suppose it could always be said that I
didn’t rally the troops. But in retrospect, I don’t think a Democrat
had a chance of winning this seat. I never believed that Kerry was our
best choice of candidates, certainly not one that cared to win from the
bottom of the ticket up, anyhow. And Karl Rove driving the Republican
message of “be afraid, be very afraid” didn’t help our cause either.
But
that’s not the point, my point is this: Governor Dean’s message was
never about Governor Dean. It was about how a Democracy should be run.
It was about how everyday people like you and me can and should have a
voice in our government. It was about how people who get up to go to
work every day ought to have the right to join a union. The Democrats
have a strong, and yes, moral message and we must not run from it.
Again, he spoke of the people having the power to take back their
country from corporate America. (Perhaps if he’d only used the words
evil-doers instead of corporate America, but I digress …) We must
listen to his message and yes, take back our country.
But in
order to do that, we must start now. We must be organized, we must pay
attention to what our government is doing, we must comment on the
issues, and we must be ready to help our candidates in any way that we
can. It’s more important to know where we want to go than it is to be
the driver getting us there. Chairman Dean is our driver; let’s tell
him where we want to go and how to get there.
Tuesday, February 8
John Drury: Bold Ideas
by
John Drury
on Tue 08 Feb 2005 08:09 PM CST
Bold Ideas
by John Drury
The Republicans in the Iowa Senate released their economic development
plan two weeks ago today and they have gotten remarkable press coverage
since then. Below is my letter to the editor printed in the Mason City
Globe Gazette the Sunday following their announcement. An excerpt was later
printed in The Des Moines Register.
Dear Editor:
The
Iowa Senate Republicans have released their economic development plan.
This plan is an alternative to the Grow Iowa Values Fund that was
developed two years ago and then shot down in the last legislative
session. There are some aspects of the Republican proposal I can
appreciate, but giving away more of our desperately needed state
revenue at a time of a budget crisis is not one of them.
One of
the key components of their plan is to eliminate income tax for people
under the age of 30. Apparently, they believe that having to pay income
tax is what is causing our 22-29 year olds to leave the state in
droves. The average yearly tax savings would be about $600 for this age
group. That amounts to $50 per month.
It isn’t the $50 a month
in taxes that is driving our well-educated youth to other states. It is
because they can make thousands more per year elsewhere. When a teacher
can go across the border and make $10-$15,000 more per year for the
same position, do our Republican leaders truly believe that saving $600
a year is going to keep them in Iowa?
Eliminating income tax for
those under 30 would cost the state approximately $200 million yearly,
according to the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency. The state of
Iowa simply cannot afford this plan.
While it’s good to see that
Republicans at least recognize the problem of young people leaving the
state, this part of the plan only serves to show how out of touch the
Senate Republicans are with the reasons why.
Signed, John Drury
The
Friday following the announcement I attended a legislative forum in
Clear Lake. When someone inevitably asked our Senator about this plan,
he said that the headline of the plan was not supposed to be about
eliminating income tax for twenty-somethings. Instead, it was some of
the tax breaks and incentives to business that were supposed to be the
attention grabber.
Yes, tax incentives to business, that's a
new concept, sure to grab a headline I thought. Just once, I'd like to
hear a Republican lay it on the line and tell it like it is. I would
certainly have more respect for them even though it might go something
like this:
Constituent: “Sen. Rascal, can you explain how the No Tax Under 30 Plan is really going to help Iowa?”
Sen. Rascal: “Well,
that's not really going to do anything other than make some more young
Republicans, so you really need to look at that part of the plan as
more of a recruitment effort by the Republican Party. We are well aware
that saving $600 per year in income tax is less than chump change and
will have no effect other than to train our young-uns to hate paying
taxes. But thanks for the question, that’s a good question, I’m glad
you asked it because it’s a good question.”
Another
explanation of the No Tax Under 30 plan I heard that day was that the
Governor asked for bold ideas. Yes, that’s true, he did ask for bold
ideas but continuing to hand out more of our state revenue for no
return during a difficult budget crisis is not a bold idea. While other
states have held onto their revenues during hard economic times, Iowa
has continued to cut revenues leaving us unable to properly fund our
most basic services.
Perhaps the Senate Republicans thought the Governor was asking for old ideas.
On another topic, the ruling on the Canadian Outlet was issued today. Judge
James Drew issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the Huffs from
selling, receiving and processing prescription drug orders which are
placed with and filled by a Canadian pharmacy.
You'll remember from an earlier column that the Canadian Outlet was a business owned
by Scot and Cheryl Huff of Mason City. Customers received their
prescriptions from their doctors, then brought them to the Canadian
Drug Outlet where the drugs were then ordered from Canadian pharmacies
over the Internet. The pharmacies then shipped the drug directly to the
customers’ homes. The pharmacies paid the Huffs a commission on orders
received.
In
the ruling the judge wrote, “It is undeniable that the cost of
prescription medication in this country is causing extreme hardship for
many, especially senior citizens. Additionally, the fact that many
prescription drugs are available at a much lower cost in Canada
compared to the United States is extremely difficult to understand.
However, the desirability of allowing prescription drugs to be
purchased from foreign countries is an issue for the Legislature to
address.”
I couldn’t agree more, and I would suggest that you ask your legislators the following question at your earliest opportunity.
“Iowa
is in the top five in the percentage of its elderly population. Since
the federal government has failed its people on this issue, don’t you
think the state of Iowa has a moral obligation to meet the needs of
Iowans who cannot afford the drugs that are prescribed to them?”
“Thanks for the question, that’s a good question, I’m glad you asked it because it’s a good question.”
|
|
