Don’t Serve Cheese at Your Next Tea Party

A common refrain heard at election rallies this year was government is out of control.  Often in angry tones, rally goers would point to the recent health care bill or corporate bailouts and say government must be stopped.  Never mind that many of the politicians playing to these crowds played loose with the facts, the theme sold and swept many new people into office.  But, before you dismiss the anti-government crowd entirely, you need consider government cheese.  Yep, government cheese.  That recurring comedic punch line is an excellent example of why the government, specifically the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives these naysayers strong ground on which to stand.

In a front-page story this morning, the New York Times reports on Dairy Management, a $140 million marketing creation of the Department of Agriculture to get the American people to eat more cheese.  Dairy Management’s revenue comes largely from a government-mandated fee (I still call that a tax) and is supplemented by several additional million from the Department itself.  Through a series of confidential (yes, confidential) agreements, Dairy Management has induced companies like Domino’s Pizza and Taco Bell to stuff their products with cheese to get fat Americans to eat even more of the gelatinous goo.

The struggling pizza chain, Domino’s, is the benefactor of a $12 million all-expense-paid marketing campaign.  All Domino’s had to do was introduce a line of pizzas with 40% more cheese.  One slice of this pizza has two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended saturated fat all while the Department is bending over backwards to tout its  $6.5 million Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion effort to promote a healthy diet.  ($140 million to eat more cheese to $6.5 million to eat healthier, hmmmmm?)

Dairy Management cooed in one report about how its agreement with Taco Bell had created a new quesadilla that used eight times more cheese than any other of its menu items.  The steak quesadilla with cheddar, pepper jack mozzarella and a creamy sauce (everybody knows three kinds of cheese is best enjoyed with a creamy sauce) is a win for Dairy Management as it rings in with more than three-quarters of the daily-recommended level of both saturated fat and sodium.  (Whoo-hoo, way to go, government!)

Dairy Management is one example of a government program started with good intentions that has run amuck.  During the Depression, the Agriculture Department bought the cheese industry’s excess product and gave it to those in need, helping to save family farms and feed people in difficult times.  The Depression ended, but the program has continued to grow.  By 1983, the government had a stockpile of $4 billion in cheese stored in Missouri caves.  (I am not making that up!)  Today, Dairy Management is focused on trying to get Americans to eat even more of the stuff, even though our consumption has skyrocketed from over ten pounds a year in the 1970’s to 33 pounds a year today.   Cheese is the largest source of saturated fat adding to Americans’ waistlines, clogged arteries and overall fine physiques.  And, Dairy Management is a bloated example of why government may just be out of control.

There is something wrong with a government that colludes with an industry to increase the sales of a product that its people do not need and is actually contributing to obesity and its related health problems.  Dairy Management spent $136 million domestically last year and an additional $5.6 million of Department money to promote dairy sales overseas.  Next time you go to a Tea Party, you might want to ask your host to hold the cheese, lest you want to be seen as a tool of the run-away government you decry.

(In the interest of self-disclosure, the writer of this piece loves cheese and he firmly believes he would even if the government wasn’t marketing it to him.)

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Changing the Rules of the Lobbying Game

Decrying the power lobbyists wield here and in Washington has become a national pastime for the political elite and occasional voter both.  When not playing golf, dining or hobnobbing at high-dollar fundraisers with lobbyists, many a powerful Republican and Democrat lawmaker have been known to give lofty speeches about limiting the lobbyist.

Financial disclosure laws, restrictions on gifts and many other acts have been passed to convince the public the lobbyist/policymaker relationship is being kept on the up and up.  However, if one has an important item pending before a lawmaking body, a good lobbyist remains essential.  Tongue in cheek, more than a few have suggested what the American public needs is our own lobbyist. They may be on to something.

Even though he is a lobbyist, I have always liked Marty Ryan.  When we have lunch, he generally eats dessert first because he feels the best part of the meal shouldn’t be ruined by the main course.  While he is a lobbyist and his eating habits are unconventional, don’t assume he is the self-indulgent, head-in-the clouds type.  Marty may be the only lobbyist in Des Moines who has longer-than-shoulder length grey hair and his interest appears to have little to do with accumulating power.  More important, he is doing something interesting .

Marty used to lobby for the Iowa wing of the American Civil Liberties Union.  He is passionate about civil liberties, protecting individual privacy, keeping the doors and records of government open, and a myriad of other issues.  After many years, he left the structure of the ACLU and started hunting a new way to make a difference.  This year he is going to be back at the Capitol, but his client list is going to be a bit different than most who prowl those halls.  Marty has launched an experiment which he hopes will allow him to lobby directly for people.  He will not work for an organization, a front-group for corporate interests or a coalition of entities.  For a modest fee, a few dollars actually, Marty tells me he will represent individuals by keeping them informed of activities on the Hill and giving them a voice during the Legislative Session.

I have no idea how this experiment will turn out and I am undecided whether I will be one of his subscribers, but I have to hand to him.  It took a guy who turns the table on lunch, to think of way to turn the table on the lobbying game.

The voters just suffered through a rough and tumble election season and most of us would like nothing better than to take a break from politics.  However, in just a few weeks, Congress and the General Assembly will be back at it again.  The difference is the real work begins now.  Voters decide who gets to sit in the seats of power, but the people need to make sure their voices are heard long after the voting booths are packed away.  It is nice to think that individuals could go about their busy lives knowing somebody was paying attention to the details without the wasted expense and meddling influence of a huge bureaucracy.  You may not support Marty’s issues and I am not trying to convince you to do so.  I just can’t help hoping his experiment is a success.  It is time somebody changed lobbying for the better.

Tonight, I am having dessert first.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Sun Still Rising on America

With the exception of the disappointing results on judicial retention, I am pleased with yesterday’s election.  Many of the candidates I wanted to win didn’t, but the process worked and that is good.  Fortunately, the nasty fringe of the Tea Party was turned back in many key races.  We now have an opportunity to return civility to our electoral process, but that has to start today and with us.

First, some thoughts on judicial retention.  Iowans took a step backward with this decision.  It is a good thing Justices are on the ballot every eight years.  The people should have the ability to remove those unfit for office.  However, these members of the Supreme Court were not tossed out because they were unfit.  They made a ruling based on our Constitution and legal precedent that made people nervous.  If Iowans did not like the ruling, they should amend the Constitution and/or change the law.  Firing the legal equivalent of a sporting event’s referee because some don’t like the call is silly.  Judges should not be threatened to rule based on public pressure.  We have a legislative and executive branch to react to the public.  The judicial branch is to be an unbiased arbitrator.

The three Justices are out, but I am hopeful Iowans have vented their frustration and will not take this further by upending what is a good process for selecting an independent judiciary.  Governor-elect Terry Branstad has a point – the commission that recommends candidates to the Governor for selection became controlled by a partisan group of Democrats under Governor Chet Culver.  For that body to work, it has to be balanced.  It is no place for one-sided politics.  Hopefully, our new Governor will return that balance and not work to scrap what has been a national model for how judicial appointment should work.

The Republican Party took control of Congress.  John Boehner will be Speaker.  This could be a good thing.  Don’t get me wrong, I am no Boehner fan, but he has an opportunity to lead and I am pulling for him.  The negative personal attacks that have infested U.S. politics must come to an end.  We can disagree, but to move forward as a nation, civility must return to our political debate.  Speaker designee Boehner has the chance to make the first step.  He does not have to compromise his beliefs and shouldn’t.  Hopefully, he will see the best way to forward his agenda is to treat those who oppose him as equals and, in doing so, find a way to end the gridlock plaguing Washington, for it holds our national future hostage.

In 2008, TV commentator Chris Matthews was ridiculed for saying a speech by candidate Barack Obama had made a “thrill run up his leg.”  Semantics aside, I understood what he meant.  Obama had moved him.  Senator-elect and Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio from Florida has a similar ability to inspire people with words.  His victory speech was the best of the night.  He spoke of what motivated him and of how our success lies in our shared belief for a better country.  I look forward to what he may bring to the Senate.

You may be calling me naïve.  However, the only way for the greatest nation in the world to continue to be great is for us to find a way to consensus.  Demonizing those who disagree with us may be a good way to win an election, but it is no way to build the country we want for the next generation.  The change starts, again, today.

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

Republicans and Democrats Both Miss the Point

Timing is everything.  The election is Tuesday and it could not come at a better time for Republicans who have run a campaign based on convincing people the country is headed in the wrong direction and the only way to set things right is to toss Democrats aside.  It appears as though the tactic has worked well.  Many Republicans will be swept into office.  The interesting thing is that much of the data does not support the claims made by the GOP.

Who will Get Burned?

Yesterday, Iowa Budget Director Richard Oshloprojected that the state’s budget will end the fiscal year in June with $300 million dollarsmore than previously projected.  If you trust the Culver Administration, this means Iowa will have a more than $900 million surplus.  Even most experts who discount this rosy political projection admit the state appears to have turned a corner.  Listen to the Terry Branstad folks and you might think the state will plunge into economic oblivion if Chet Culver wins reelection.

This morning, the third quarter economic numbers were released showing the GDP improved at a faster rate than it had last quarter.  This nearly met or exceeded many economists’ predictions.  Don’t get me wrong, there are too many people out of work and there is much to be done before we will be able to say our economy is healthy.  But, the political rhetoric of the season spun a tale based less on facts like these and more on scare tactics.

The election will be over Tuesday and the torch of leadership may change hands.  The question for those who will lead is whether will they light the way to the future, use it to flame their opponents or get burned themselves.

Many new people will take office in the days and weeks to come.  Regardless of their party affiliation, the reality these officials will face and the problems with which they must deal are different than what most of them talked about out on the stump.  Moreover, most every poll taken in recent weeks does not indicate voters support one party platform over another.  In fact, it shows they do not think highly of either.  As the latest Selzer/Bloomberg poll shows, what voters want more than anything else is for their elected officials to work together and to seek compromise and consensus.

Before the newly sworn in start passing laws to overturn the ones passed by those who came before them, they would be wise to take an honest pulse of the people they were elected to lead.  Tuesday’s election results will not be a mandate on policy, but a message that voters want more cooperation across the party aisle and less bickering.  After the 2010 campaign slugfest, I am not too convinced many are interested in or capable of heeding this call.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Election 2010 – The Backside Backslide

Six more days and the 2010 elections will be behind us.  Whew!  It has been nasty and even though there are few as politically geeky as I, it is doubtful anyone will be more pleased when the ballots are counted and this one becomes history.  I sit here pondering our national progress and the state of affairs here in Iowa.  I question whether we are making progress or just carping about the edges of the problems we face. 

I was looking back at my past posts and stumbled across what I wrote on Inauguration Day 2009.  President Obama had been sworn in and many in the country sensed we had turned a corner.  I closed that piece by saying “our time is now.”  It was, in my opinion, time for Americans to rise to our patriotic duty, put the squabbling in the rearview mirror and get to work.  Much has changed, but much has stayed the same. 

Anger, distrust and misleading accusations seemed to be the norm this campaign season.  In the heat of the moment, it is hard to say what that all meant and what will come of this antagonism.  Like most voters, I have definite opinions about what needs to be done and strong feelings about which path we should take.  However, I remain as optimistic as I was on January 20, 2009.  This country is worth fighting for and government policy should be debated openly.

My frustration with the 2010 election slugfest stems from the fact the airways appeared clogged with the negative more than usual.  Candidates were less concerned with ideas and vision than they were with winning – presumably the details of governing would come later.    

Election 2010 (Photo supplied by Kent Carlson)

The picture to the right was posted by my friend Kent Carlson to his Facebook page yesterday.  (Feel free to make your own joke.  Many did on Kent’s page.)  While it is hard to believe a playground manufacturer would think having children slide out the backside of an elephant was a good idea, I thought the photo was an excellent metaphor for this year’s election contest.  Much of our focus is on the wrong side of the equation, so to speak, whether your party mascot is an elephant or a donkey.  We need to spend less time dumping on the other guy and more on making the most of the opportunity to improve our situation. 

Many new people will be elected to local, state and federal offices next week and many will be returned to service.  Regardless, the charge remains the same.  Our time is now and we will be successful if we remember the keyword is “our.”  As long as those who win focus on ideas, moving forward and worry less about accumulating power and how to win the next election, I remain confident we can take advantage of this moment. 

It is up to us to keep those who we elect focused on the job at hand.  Tomorrow will be better, if we do. 

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Stench of Politics and the Appel/Sorenson Race

I was up early this morning and had WHO-TV on in the background as I prepared for the day.  Haunting music wafted from the box and one grainy image after another flashed across the screen at every commercial break.  We are in the final weeks of election season in America and the state of political discourse is in the toilet.  No, it is lower than that.  It swims in the sewers.

All of the ads screeching from my television this morning, except for two, were negative.  Terry Branstad’s positive, hopeful spots were a welcome breath of fresh air amidst a nearly unrelenting blast of putrid hyperbole.  There were too many nasty ones to count.  It is time we voters demand better from those running for office.

The single worst ad of the season hit me as I was walking out the door.  A child was playing with a truck on the floor, his back to the camera.  A narrator recited the human cost of domestic violence as printed text reinforced the number of women and children harmed and tragically killed in such acts of violence in our state.  The kick to the stomach was the ad made it sound as if state senate candidate Kent Sorenson’s vote on a piece of gun legislation is directly linked to these dreadful events. 

I would have voted differently if I had been in Sorenson’s position and I strongly believe more needs to be done to protect people from falling victim to an abuser.  Moreover, Sorenson’s campaign behavior has been reprehensible in many ways as well.  However, Staci Appel’s advertisement is shameful.  The Appel attack ad represents what reeks in politics.   She should be ashamed.

I am not naïve.  I know negative campaigning works.  As on school playgrounds, cheap shots like these often do.  But, more is at stake here than who gets to sit at the “cool” table at lunch.  There is a growing divide in our country.  For an increasing number of voters, a party label is the determining factor in who is branded good and who is branded evil.  If you are not for my candidate, you are against me, America, freedom or, as Appel implied in her ad, for making it easier for barbarians to batter and abuse women and children.

The problems and opportunities we face as a people demand thoughtful debate.  To continue our upward climb as a nation, we need those who serve in office to be the brightest among us.  But, fewer and fewer brilliant people are willing to put themselves and their families through the meat grinder of modern politics.  This shrinking candidate talent pool means we will likely fall short of what we could achieve otherwise.

We need to reform how campaigns work and to send an unmistakable message to candidates that we want them to stop the bashing.  A person who is able to outline a vision for the future and convince people to follow is a leader.  A person who tears down others just so he can win an election is no better than a schoolyard bully and deserves the adult version of detention.

Ms. Appel, Mr. Sorenson and other offenders of election decorum, you were wrong and we look forward to seeing you after class to discuss how we can do better, together.

###

A summary of the nasty Appel/Sorenson race can be found here.

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Is the US Chamber of Commerce Abusing the Political Process?

The United States Chamber has always been a political organization, but this year’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case allowed organizations like the Chamber to go further by getting directly involved in the advocacy of candidates.  The Chamber has jumped into the fray in a big way and is spending $75 million to elect candidates, most of whom are Republicans, to Congress.

John Ruan, III is serving as vice chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce and will be its next chairman.  He used his clout with the organization to convince Tom Donohue, the Chamber’s president and C.E.O., to come to Ruan’s hometown of Des Moines and address the Rotary Club.  It was a timely presentation.

On Tuesday the left leaning Center for American Progress released a report detailing how the United States Chamber of Commerce was getting “dues” payments of tens of thousands of dollars from foreign companies in countries such as Bahrain, India and Egypt and mingling the money with funds from U.S. members to advocate for or against candidates in the midterm races.  The report was summarized in the Center’s online blog, Think Progress. The New York Times offered an opinion on the matter as well.

I am a Rotarian and I took the opportunity to ask Mr. Donohue about this matter at lunch Thursday during the question period.  Specifically, I asked,“The recent Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case allowed corporations and organizations like the U.S. Chamber to participate in the political process by funding ads. And, I don’t know the facts in particular in this case, but I think the U.S. Chamber is running some ads and it collects money from foreign nationals and corporations into their 501(c)(6).  Does the perception bother you that foreign nationals are participating in the political process and, if so, what would the U.S. Chamber do to correct that perception or practice?”

If you want to save some time, Mr. Donohue’s answer to my question appeared to be that the U.S. Chamber was not going to do anything different to change the perception that the Chamber is mingling foriegn with domestic political funds, nor change its actual practices.  He just talked about how liberals are out to sink the Chamber.  That is my take, for what it is worth.

But, if you wish to read Mr. Donohue’s entire response, here it is: “It is against the law for foreign nationals to participate in the political process. And, that thing appeared first on a blog supported by George Soros and followed by an irresponsible editorial in the New York Times and then jumped into all the blogs driven by people who are very, very upset about what is going to happen in this election.

So, we don’t bring any money…they claim we did it through our American Chambers of Commerce Abroad.  They’ve been going on for a hundred years.  That’s absolute rubbish.

The second thing is the Citizens United thing.  That rule didn’t say we could run ads.  We’ve been running ads for years.  What it said is if we wanted to, we could say instead of educate – go call up your Congressman and ask him where he stands on this issue – that we could say actually elected him or defeat him.  Which, we’re not doing, by the way.  It’s much easier to do it the other way.

But, what we have here – and then they tried to pass legislation keeping us out of the political process.  I mean, you know, we’re going to spend, I don’t know, $50 to 75 million in this election.  The unions alone are going to spend 200 or so million dollars.  But, they would like to have an uneven playing field even more.  They would like to keep us out.

So that it is very unfortunate that somebody, you know, a bright person out here this far away from the New York Times gets the impression that we’re doing stuff like that.  It’s just simply political hogwash trying to get us off the field.  And, I just got our guys together and said ‘OK, we’re going to put more money in.’

And, so, we’re out trying to…when I sat down to speak to you they were picketing our building in Washington and I like it because it is a clear indication that what we are doing is working.”

I wish Mr. Donohue would have said the Chamber would not mingle funds from those outside the United States with those within when running the Chamber’s political efforts.  He did not and that is troubling.

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

My American Pledge

Today, Congressional Republicans released a Pledge to America, a series of guiding principles intended to show how Republicans will lead if they take control of the House.  Among other promises in the twenty one page document, those signing “pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”  I will ignore the political code words in that and applaud them for at least saying something about what they will do.  It is a switch from a campaign based on complaining about what others have done and scaring people about what these others might do.

The 1994 Contract with America, devised by former Speaker Newt Gingrich, was simple and, as such, served as an outstanding election tool.  Like much in politics today, this new document is convoluted.  The Contract was clear-cut and linked to specific legislation.  Incidentally, Congress passed 60% of those bills in the first few months of taking power.  Perhaps the Pledge will offer a similar roadmap.  Time will tell.

In the meantime, I drew up my own pledge to guide me in this and all future elections.

I, pledge to:

1. Pay less attention to the Party label/single issue/tagline a candidate chooses and more attention to her values, experience and ability to do the job she seeks.
2. Stop allowing those who seek power/money/influence/self aggrandizement to cloud my thinking.  It may be fun to listen to the media talking heads make a game out of politics, but their talk can be destructive.  I am interested in making the world a better place.  To do so, I will seek information to help me decide what is best for my country, my state, my community and my family and I will discard meaningless rhetoric.
3. Listen to others (real people, not the talking heads mentioned above).  I accept I do not know everything.  By learning from others, even those with whom I disagree, I will become a better, more informed voter and citizen.
4. Participate.  It is my duty to become informed on issues affecting me, my family, my neighbors and my countrymen.  I may not know what it is to be gay/minority/rich/poor/disabled/fill-in-the-blank, but it is my patriotic responsibility to help those in need, those discriminated against and all of my fellow Americans.  We all have a right to pursue the promise of freedom, the American dream.  I must act and not wait for others to do so.
5. Remember elections are not sporting events.  I do not seek wins for the red or blue column, having more R’s than D’s in a diagram, or a conquest of one party over another.  An election does not end in triumph; it only decides who will next enter the arena.  A victory is achieved when our country takes another step toward assuring freedom, equality and justice for all.  This happens with collective action, not vote counting.
6. Vote for candidates who will honestly evaluate each bill, situation and issue before them and who will base decisions on what is right for the people they wish to serve, not on what is best for the candidate or his Party.
7. Vote for candidates who understand our Constitution – the whole document – and who will not play favorites with the sections expedient to advancing the cause du jour.[i]
8. To be strengthened, not limited, by history.  Like my own, America’s past is filled with successes and mistakes.  I will not rest on the achievements of yesterday or dwell on its errors.  I will build on what has been learned.
9. To be fair.  Freedom dies without justice.  I will fight for fairness and justice and will support only those candidates for office who will do the same.
10. To take advantage of all America provides.  The best way to spread freedom at home and abroad is to treat others as we wish to be treated.  If my fellow Americans and I thrive and we remain true to protecting freedom here and, when we can, elsewhere; more will join us and freedom will blossom in every corner of our country and in the most distant, hostile parts of the world.

---

[i] The first “pledge” in the Republican Pledge to America is to pay more attention to the 10^th Amendment than to the rest of Constitution.  Sorry, guys, the whole thing is important.  You don’t get to pick your favorite part as an excuse to overlook the rest. They also say they will honor the “original intent” of the Framers.  Unless you were actually one of the original framers, there is no way for you to know for sure what they intended.  It is better to stick to the document and make a case for what you believe than to pretend like you know what you want to do was intended by the Founders and what the opposition says was not.  The text from the Pledge reads: “We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”


(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Google Time Travel Reminds Me Why Culver is in Trouble

Mysterious electronic quirks will result in odd Google search results now and again.  This morning I was looking for articles written this week about Iowa’s race for Governor.  Interestingly, the third result was from nearly a year ago, not this week, and it included a link to something I had written.  Shane Vander Hart’sCaffeinated Thoughts blog was considering Governor Chet Culver’s reelection chances.  I am thankful for the Internet glitch, because it reminded me of a few things and made me question what I was researching in the first place.

My piece dated October 6, 2009 was written in the wake of the Iowa Film Office debacle and after Culver had made a statement at a groundbreaking for a new state building that showed he possessed something less than a firm grasp on how the project was being funded.  The Governor said the project was exempt from the building moratorium he had instituted because the money had been appropriated before the ban.  When a reporter pointed out the building was being funded by a bond issue that was to be repaid with fees collected by the Utilities Board and not general fund dollars subject to the moratorium, the Governor said, “better yet!”  It was another bad moment for Culver.

I speculated that in order to win reelection, Culver was going to have to own up to his mistakes and work to build back the public’s trust.  So far, Culver has done the first part.  He went to the Iowa State Fair and apologized to Iowans and his campaign has aired a commercial with the same theme.  Unfortunately, the Culver team has done next to nothing about winning the voters’ trust.  A year after I wrote my post about what Culver needed to do to win, it is clear he has done little to do so.

I cheekily ended my post a year ago with, “Pretty soon he (Culver) is going to find himself asking voters if they share his vision for the future, or if they want to change course mid-stream.  Here is a hint, Governor.  If the voters answer, ‘better yet,’ you are in big trouble.”

Here we are in the Fall of 2010 and the Culver campaign is in big trouble.

My Google search started because I had just told a Facebook friend that it took more to win an election than saying “at least I am not my opponent.”  Part of Terry Branstad’s challenge to Culver is based on that, but he has staked out a number of strong policy positions and he has a long track record to show how he may behave in office this time.  Culver has not staked out many clear policy positions for his next term, or shown why he will be better than his opponent.

Culver has about 7 weeks to turn his campaign around.  He needs to stop apologizing, stop trying to make Branstad look bad and start demonstrating how he will be a better leader over the next few years than his opponent.  As I examine the ghosts I found on the Internet this morning, it occurs to me Culver may be about a year behind.

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

We’re Mad as Hell, but We Don’t Have Time to Vote?

Voters in the Des Moines Public School District are trickling into the polls today to vote on the renewal of the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL).  I understand a tax levy isn’t exactly the sexiest topic, but amidst all the “Take Our Country Back” talk, one might think turnout would be heavier.  The fact only about 1,700 people had voted as of 1:00 p.m. is troubling on many fronts.  This is, after all, a property tax issue and one that significantly affects our public schools.

Turnout is so low for a couple of reasons; 1) this is the first year a school board election is not being held on the second Tuesday of September and 2) PPEL is one of a handful of obscure and confusing funding tools few voters understand.

The General Assembly recently changed terms of school board members from three to four years.  This was supposed to save the cost of holding elections every year by making the elections biennial.  Des Moines Schools, in its wisdom, has made sure those savings are not realized in year one by holding this vote.  More important, by keeping school board elections as a standalone election the second Tuesday after Labor Day, the General Assembly assured turnout will always be low making it easy for special interest groups to manipulate the results.  Yes, some will say vaguely that election officers prefer to keep school board elections separate from other votes because school board boundaries do not line up with city, congressional or other ballot items.  This is bunk.  Ballots can be prepared for elections with multiple questions and boundaries.

Second, school funding is a complex mix of revenue sources and a mind-numbing array of spending restrictions.  PPEL is just one example.  Voters might be better able to get their arms around this messy brew, if the school district did a better job of presenting its budget.  I won’t bore you in this blog with my full prescription, but let me give you a synopsis.  The district budget needs to be presented each year in a simpler layout.  Each funding source should be listed with its effective and renewal dates, amount of money raised, the exact amounts spent and the items purchased or salaries paid with these funds, etc.  Each funding source’s revenue and expense totals would correspond with the larger budget document the district already produces.  The result would be a budget we could all understand.

OK, go ahead and discount my ideas above, but we should all agree today’s turnout is abhorrent.  Next time you find yourself in an angry mob yelling about government tyranny, you should ask how many of those in that mob voted today.  It is hard to take somebody too seriously about what he is going to do to change things, if he could not get to the polls to decide this important issue on such a fine, sunny day.  And, there is still time to get to the polls, if you have not voted yet.

(GRAHAM GILLETTE CAN BE REACHED BY EMAIL AT GRAHAMGILLETTE@GMAIL.COM)

Added 9/15/2010 – The PPEL was renewed for another ten years by 65% of the 5,077 voters who voted in this election.  Des Moines has 119,139 voters.  This means 4% of voters turned out yesterday.  The special election will cost Des Moines Schools $85,000.  Here is the link to Des Moines Register story about the vote

Middle School is like a Chris Rock Joke

I decided to write this morning’s post at Gateway Market in Des Moines. I wanted to escape the office and pound out something insightful about last night’s primaries in Colorado and Connecticut. I thought Gateway would be a quiet place to write. I was wrong. The place was packed with people and it was hard to concentrate on other states with so much of Iowa and Des Moines talking around and to me. (The blueberry muffin was mighty tasty though.)

Max Knauer was chatting to some folks about his campaign for the Broadlawns Medical Center Board of Trustees, there were Democrat campaign staffers at one table, business folks at a few others, and Des Moines School officials were meeting with a representative of the United Way over coffee in a far corner. A few people stopped at my table to talk about politics and the world. Next to the rain, the main topic was the state of our schools. The approaching start of the school year and yesterday’s rushed vote by Congress to send money for education to the states had many asking, “are we getting our money’s worth from education spending?”

Iowans take pride in our reputation as an educational leader. Much of this reputation is justified, but the high standing is partly due to the fact schools in other parts of this country are failing miserably. Comedian Chris Rock has a classic bit he performs about low expectations; calling yourself a good dad because you take care of your kids, or a good person because you never went to jail is ridiculous. You are SUPPOSED to do the former and NEVER do the latter. Those are minimum standards. The fact most Iowa kids graduate high school, or that most do pretty well in the long run are shockingly low standards when one deconstructs Iowans’ school pride.

In the coming days, students all over Iowa will return to the classroom and teachers will renew the battle to inspire and educate. More than one politician will make strong statements on the campaign trail about his commitment to education and, with teary eyes, try to demonstrate his unwavering commitment to public schools. I won’t paraphrase Chris Rock’s expletive laced comment, but a public servant is supposed to support education. The question to be asked is, “what exactly will you do to support education?”

Yesterday’s passage of the $26 billion aid package for schools will pay for many things. Some teacher jobs will be saved and a whole lot of money will change hands, but will our schools be any better? No, but they won’t be any worse. That, my friends, is not good enough. The middle school curriculum in Des Moines and across the country has not changed much over the years. Every year countless kids walk out of junior high school for good as we collectively look the other way. Most students stay – most of them survive middle school. As Rock would say, “they are supposed to!”

Middle school teacher Andrew Rasmussen will soon be standing in a classroom trying to get through to a bunch of hormone pumping eighth grade social studies students. Last spring, he and his fellow educators were unable to think about much beyond the minimum. They held their breath hoping they wouldn’t lose their jobs in the next round of budget cuts. Finances are a bit better today, but it won’t last. The future still looks grim, but it could be worse, right?

I focus on middle school because we pay the least amount of attention to the middle years and, most important, this is when the most kids are lost to the system. Mr. Rasmussen wants the District to reinstitute a Middle School Study Committee to look into ways to improve junior high. Des Moines has done this before. A lot of noise was made about the committee and recommendations were made with a great flourish. In the end, not much changed in Mr. Rasmussen’s classroom or ones like it all across the city. This time, let’s form the committee and follow through with what comes out of it.

To be successful, the proposed middle school committee must be formed with a clear mandate and have the support of the school district administration, school board, parents and the community. Here’s hoping we can do something more than shake our heads over coffee, or pat ourselves on the back for being better than Alabama or Mississippi. Let’s urge our school leaders to listen to Mr. Rasmussen and create a plan to do more than create a committee to make ourselves feel better. Perhaps we can move beyond a Chris Rock punch line and doing the minimum when it comes to public education.

(Another blueberry muffin would be wrong, wouldn’t it?)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats’ Quiet Period to End

Perennial gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats is holding a press conference at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow at the State Capitol. Vander Plaats has been mulling an independent run since losing to Terry Branstad in the primary. Branstad and Vander Plaats have tried to come to some agreement, but tomorrow’s affair gives this observer the impression the bridge to reconciliation could not be built.

Vander Plaats could surprise me, but the fact he made the announcement independent of the Branstad camp makes me think he is about to stick it to the former governor one more time. Vander Plaats may or may not announce his candidacy tomorrow, but I am guessing he is about to vent some conservative frustration about the Republican nominee while he still has the semblance of a podium at which to stand. If Vander Plaats runs, he will be a thorn in Branstad’s side and one can argue Vander Plaats will mostly help Chet Culver by entering the fray. However, I still see the race as Branstad’s to lose even with a third party candidate on the ballot.

Conservatives like Vander Plaats are turning up the heat on two issues these days, immigration and marriage. Recent federal court rulings have angered them, making it likely these issues will drive much of the forthcoming election cycle. Last week a federal judge temporarily blocked key parts of Arizona’s new immigration law and yesterday a federal judge struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. It is hard to imagine Vander Plaats walking away with these issues boiling on the front burner of the right wing stove top. He’ll want to stay in that kitchen, trust me. Tomorrow we will find out how he plans to do so.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Political Party Refuses Low Road, Digs Tunnel

I am hoping it is just because I need a vacation, but my tolerance for politics these days is next to nil. The finger pointing, name calling and an overall lack of leadership from political leaders is turning me into one of those old men who mutter to themselves about the “good ole’ days” while reading or listening to the news. The blame game seems to have all but erased any trace of a once widely shared sense of duty to improve our communities, states, nation and world.

An email I received today from Brad Woodhouse may have turned me from a mumbler to just plain angry. As communications director, Woodhouse oversees the propaganda wing of the Democratic National Committee. Apparently, the Republican and Democratic Parties each consist of two wings; a propaganda wing to distribute information about the wickedness of the other party and a fundraising wing to bring in the truckloads of cash the propaganda wing needs to spew venom coast to coast.

I am guessing Woodhouse and his team at the DNC saw a recent poll showing a high number of voters connect BP with something bad. They could have focused on the something bad, the Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster, and tried to come up with a plan to advance Democrats as leaders and, dare I say it, actually address the problem. But, drafting a policy to deal with the clean-up, prevent future disasters, or move the US from its dependency on oil is unfamiliar territory for a communication director of a national political party in 2010.

So, the DNC dug a tunnel under the low road and developed a website, www.bprepublicans.com, to link Republicans to the current most evil corporation on the planet, nevermind that Democrats up and down the line have also taken money from Big Oil for decades. BP is hated. There are Republicans who have said nice things about BP and have their pictures with BP executives. Attack and let the voters decide!

Woodhouse’s email says, “It’s as if they’ve (Republicans have) forgotten that they have a responsibility to the people of the Gulf who’ve seen their lives and livelihoods upended by this tragedy.” The problem is that Woodhouse, his colleagues, and their counterparts at the Republican Party do not understand that responsibility is derived from the root responsible. Yes, part of the definition of responsible is about blame, but the higher part has to do with taking charge and doing what is right when faced with a problem. I see too few responsible elected officials these days. It is time the political parties and the candidates we elect who carry the labels of these parties worry less about blame and more about doing something worthwhile.

If you see me reading the newspaper and grumbling, I hope you will understand why and know that a vacation might fix much of what ails me. As for the Democratic and Republican machines, it may very well take a complete overhaul before they are able to readopt that sense of duty so many of us wish they shared.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats is in this Thing

Today, the Iowa Independent reports that the Energizer bunny of Iowa gubernatorial politics, Bob Vander Plaats, is mulling an independent bid for the office.

Just because I am actually keeping score; on Primary Day while Iowans were still voting, a political observer said this, “If Vander Plaats gets close to 40% of the vote in today’s race, he will seriously consider an independent run for the office.” Vander Plaats did get 40% and is making moves like he will run. One point for me. (Full text of the blog where I said this is here http://bit.ly/itoldu)

Let me reiterate what I said that day, in many ways, the Vander Plaats folks would prefer a Culver victory over one for Branstad. They do not like Culver, but Branstad’s victory in November would limit options for them in years to come – like who gets to be Party chair, who controls Party resources and who is in charge of the messaging carried and heard by conservatives. The heart of the battle in Iowa is not about winning an office, but for who controls the Republican/conservative/Tea Party cause. Vander Plaats is not ready to go into that good night and Branstad puts a significant dent into the aspirations of many who support Vander Plaats.

If Vander Plaats walks away, he is a three time loser. If runs as a independent candidate and Branstad wins, Vander Plaats gets to call himself a martyr for the cause. If he runs and Culver wins, Vander Plaats supporters will say that the wrong guy won in June and will continue to inveigle their way into the Party apparatus. Stay tuned Iowans; the messy political games have just begun.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.