Political candidates seem to be notorious for making campaign promises which they almost inevitably break once elected. I wish to avoid this manner of notoriety, so will limit my promises to those I know that I can keep, separating those from goals which I would like to accomplish or at least investigate further.
Promises
1. I’ll do my best.
2. I’ll be honest.
When I speak with patients, particularly those with a more serious problem and/or those who may require major surgery, I commonly make a statement such as the following. “I cannot guarantee outcomes, but I can promise you two things: I will do my best, and I will always be honest.” Most patients assume that their physicians will do their best, but I think they still value the reassurance. It is the promise of honesty, however, that I have found most patients particularly value. When I have a patient with a serious illness, such as a lung cancer which has recurred or is more advanced that can be potentially cured with surgery, I am always candid in my discussions. It is not an easy discussion, for them or for me, but it is necessary. And, in the end, I think my patients have appreciated my honesty as much as my expressions of empathy.
So, my first two political promises are to do my best, and to be honest. I have never been a politician before, and have never served as a public official, so I am certain that I will make some mistakes. I will, however, try to learn from those mistakes, and continue to strive to do my best. I will also be honest. If I make a substantial mistake, I will not hide that fact. More importantly, I will not refrain from discussing issues of importance, even if they are politically unpalatable. We face daunting challenges in the years ahead, from growing debt to unsustainable social programs and an expansive military empire, and these need to be addressed intelligently and honestly. If I am not elected this year, or not re-elected in future years, because I have been honest, I will have no regrets.
3. I’ll serve no more than three terms (12 years).
4. I’ll accept no state compensation for my service.
My second two campaign promises are related directly to the political office I seek. First, I believe that term limits for elected public officials are long overdue. Even in the absence of legislation requiring such limits, I promise to limit my term in office to no more than twelve years (this assumes, of course, that I can tolerate that much). Second, I will not accept any public compensation for my service. The salary for an Iowa Senator is $25,000 per year, a sum that while not inconsequential, assumes that the Senator will typically maintain an outside source of employment. I will maintain my surgical practice while in office, and am quite willing to sacrifice this additional salary, particularly in these troubled economic times. I am not certain about the means of accomplishing this promise, whether I can simply decline payment, or whether I must accept the salary and donate it thereafter, but by whatever means, I will abide by my pledge.
Goals
1. Reduce Iowa government spending to 1980 levels.
In the past 30 years, the Iowa government has grown more than 130%, in inflation-adjusted dollars, despite a stable population base. Please see my post, Iowa Budget History: Partisan Neutral, for details. I cannot comprehend why such growth was necessary, and certainly cannot imagine that all of that growth was beneficial. While I am not so naive as to believe that a reduction in government spending to 1980 levels is realistic, I think that is a reasonable goal to which to aspire.
2. Improve economic conditions for business growth in Iowa.
According to a 2009 U.S. News & World Report article, Iowa is the second-worst state in the country in which to start a new business; only West Virginia was ranked lower. According to the article, Iowa “seems to have the worst impulses of its conservative and liberal tendencies–relatively low investment in the things that make entrepreneurs succeed, and high government interference. For the latter, Iowa has very high capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes, and is also one of the worst states for unemployment taxes on wages. In terms of investment, Iowa is 46th out of the states for adoption of broadband telecommunications services, and the speed of those services.” Recognizing that government cannot itself create jobs in the private sector, it can only foster a beneficial environment in which business will develop, we need to make exceptional efforts to lessen the costs (economic and regulatory) of private enterprise, if Iowa is to optimize its chances for economic success and job growth for Iowans.
3. Advocate for Iowa’s sovereignty.
As I discuss in my page, Philosophy, our Republic was established upon the idea that each individual was sovereign, and that each member State retained it’s own sovereignty apart from the Federal government. We need to restore the focus of government to the state and local level for most matters. This will allow Iowans to better control their own daily lives, rather than depending upon, or even fearing, edicts from Washington, D.C. In turn, this would allow the Federal government to better focus upon the limited and defined role it was granted by the States in the U.S. Constitution. The concept of nullification is of particular value here, allowing Iowa the opportunity to protest and ignore laws passed at the Federal level that are felt to be unconstitutional or onerous.
4. Attempt to insulate Iowa from the economic threat of Federal spending and borrowing.
As I argue in my post, Debt: Our Gravest Threat And Our Greatest Moral Failing, I believe that outstanding debt, and continued excessive spending and borrowing, pose the most significant economic and moral challenge to Iowans, and all Americans. Although I am running for a state office, I believe there are things which can, and should, be done to lessen the risk to Iowans from decisions made at the federal level. The three largest items in the Federal budget are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense, and all are unsustainable at current levels and rates of growth. I believe that the risks from each of these programs can be addressed, at least in part, at the state level, as discussed below.
5. Explore options to devise a sustainable program for future older Iowans.
There is no doubt in my mind that Social Security will one day cease to exist. Whether one reads critiques written at the time of the program’s creation in 1935, or even official (and overly optimistic) government projections in 2010, it becomes readily clear that Social Security is not sustainable in its current form. Social Security was never a savings program for retirement. The first people to collect benefits had never contributed to the program at all, or had only done so for a few years. Rather, the benefits they received came from “contributions” from current workers. Social Security was always dependent upon new workers entering the labor market to support those who had retired. Given increased longevity, the coming “retirement boomers” of the “baby boom” generation, the decreasing numbers of new workers, and the overall debt burden of the Federal government, it is obvious to me that Social Security is not fiscally sustainable. Private and public pension plans in Iowa face similar challenges. IPERS, the largest pension plan in the state for public employees, faces long term solvency issues, according to a 2009 report (see pages 109-114). I don’t have definitive vision of what a plan for Iowa would look like. I do believe in the principle that one should save for one’s own retirement, and not rely on others to pay. I also believe that we should help one another in times of need. What is clear is that the status quo is unsustainable, and that if we are to be prudent, we should begin to look at alternatives. Others have done so, to include the Amish and three counties in Texas, and we should do so, as well.
6. Realize true healthcare reform.
I have studied problems with our healthcare system steadily for the past three years, and wrote a brief blog on healthcare which is available on this site. The one clear conclusion that I can draw from my analysis, and this conclusion is the same in every outside analysis I have read, is that our current healthcare system is unsustainable. In fact, our healthcare system, to include Medicare and Medicaid, is even in worse condition than Social Security. Unfortunately, the recently passed Federal healthcare reform bill did nothing to actually reform our healthcare system to make it more sustainable. The Iowa legislature should nullify the recent healthcare bill and begin to look at more sustainable options. Several items are critical in this regard: First, we need to uncouple the relationship between employment and healthcare insurance. People change jobs frequently, and especially recently, have been losing jobs. Their healthcare insurance should remain, as long as required premiums are met, regardless of employment status. Second, we need to restore the traditional model of insurance to healthcare services (as opposed to the current healthcare “plans”), for unexpected and potentially catastrophic needs. This is best accomplished through high-deductible, or “catastrophic” healthcare insurance (we purchased such for my family this year). Third, routine care should be paid for out-of-pocket, best funded through a Health Savings Account (HSA), which is a tax-deferred account set up at most banks, rather like an IRA for healthcare needs. This would require patients to prioritize their healthcare needs, seek out the best values, promote competition among healthcare providers, ultimately permitting lower costs and better performance. Fourth, high-deductible healthcare plans should also be subjected to free market forces, allowing individuals and families to purchase the coverage they require from across state lines. Fifth, consideration should be given to the creation of statewide purchasing agreements for pharmaceuticals and medical appliances, to include purchasing such goods from outside of the country, in order to foster competition and decrease costs. All of these reforms could be tailored to meet the needs of those with more limited resources. For example, Iowa could provide a high-deductible healthcare insurance policy to those who cannot afford one, and possibly partially fund Health Savings Accounts in accordance with need.
7. Bring the Guard home.
I believe in the right of the United States to defend itself from foreign forces; this is clearly established in the Constitution. However, to engage in a seemingly endless series of foreign engagements is not in keeping with the original intent of the Constitution. Except in the need of emergent defense of an invasion, military action, like the death penalty for criminal cases, needs to be applied only after careful deliberation and elimination of other, less final, options. We must learn to realize that warfare is a destructive act, that it is never constructive, and that it should always be a choice of last resort. Our military personnel are killed and wounded. Opposing military personnel are killed and wounded. Civilians, to include the aged, women, and children are killed and wounded. Millions of dollars are supplies are destroyed or expended. Civilian infrastructure, such as homes, schools, businesses and roads are destroyed or damaged. Again, military action is never constructive, it is always destructive. Yet, unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary, and serving that need is one of the few and defined responsibilities of our Federal government. At the state level, the options to limit unnecessary military activity is limited, but at least one option does remain. We should restore the Iowa Governor as the sole commander-in-chief of the Iowa National Guard. In so doing, the Governor would have to consent to the deployment of our young Iowans as part of a U.S. military operation, ideally limited to a congressionally declared state of war or a national emergency due to invasion of our homeland. Limiting the availability of reserve troops for use by the Federal government should serve to make the President and Congress more cautious in deliberating possible military action, while not harming our national preparedness one iota.
8. Consider a state-owned bank.
Currently, the only state-owned bank is in North Dakota. Somewhat ironically, the Bank of North Dakota was formed in 1919, in response to socialist influences, but has remained an important factor in North Dakota’s capitalistic success, even through the recent recession. I think that a Bank of Iowa is an idea worth exploring. Such a bank could function as a Reserve Bank for Iowa’s needs, guaranteed by Iowa’s net assets, and utilized as a source of funding for infrastructure needs, small business and farming loans, student loans, etc. It would also be the sole clearinghouse for state funding, revenue and spending. I do not pretend to be a banker, economist or monetary expert, but I believe that the idea of a state-owned bank may have merit, and is an idea at least worth of examination. Other states are considering similar proposals, and I think it is time we do so, as well.
9. Consider a statewide currency.
No statewide currencies are in existence at this moment, but a number of local and regional currencies have enjoyed success recently. Of these, BerkShares, based in the Berkshires region of Massachusetts, is probably the most well known and most successful. Many, including me, are concerned about the past erosion in the purchasing power of the U.S. Federal Reserve Note, and are even more concerned about the possibility of outright collapse of this currency in the future. Trade and barter are alternatives, but they are cumbersome. Gold and silver are attractive and durable, but heavy and still somewhat cumbersome. A statewide currency, I believe, is an attractive option. It could be issued and backed by a Bank of Iowa, traded at fair market rates with other currencies, to include the Federal Reserve Note, and used in an identical manner to what we are accustomed. Such a statewide currency would not only help insulate Iowa from future depreciation of the Federal Reserve Note, but it would encourage reinvestment within Iowa, leading to further economic stability and growth.
10. Pass term limits.
This is way overdue. We need to restore the idea of private citizens entering public service for defined periods of time, then returning to the private sector. They should be public servants, not professional politicians. George Washington and Samuel Adams were excellent examples of founders who were requested to stay in the service of their country and state, but declined in order to allow others to continue their efforts. I believe that twelve years is the greatest length of time we should want or expect our men and women to serve in office. At the state level, this would consist of three terms as governor or senator, and six terms as a representative. I am not fixed on the twelve year length of time, although it would allow a comfortable fit for U.S. senators, consisting of two six-year terms. There are reasonable arguments against term limits, but at this time, I believe that more good than bad would come from adopting term limits in Iowa.
11. Election reform.
The election process on the national stage is in desperate need of reform, particularly when considering campaign finance. Even at the state level, however, there is room for improvement, as I have observed as part of this campaign. Three rules, in particular, are especially disadvantageous to any third-party candidate. First, in order to be placed on the ballot as a third party candidate, it is usually necessary to obtain a number of signatures on a petition (the number of signatures required depends upon the office sought), and the petitions must be then filed with the Iowa Secretary of State. Major party candidates, in contrast, secure their position on the ballot through a primary nominating process alone. Second, early voting is particularly advantageous to candidates from the two major parties, and incumbents, as third party candidates have not had ample time between filing their candidate petitions and the beginning of the early election season, to make their presence and issues known. Early voting should either be eliminated entirely, or limited to 1-2 weeks prior to the official election day. Lastly, “straight-ticket”, or “straight-party” voting is disadvantageous to voters and candidates alike, as it allows votes to be cast without requiring at least a modicum of due diligence on the part of voters. In this year’s election, for example, the candidates for House District 30 and Senate District 15 consist only of incumbent Democrats and challenging Libertarians; no Republican is running in either race. Accordingly, a straight party vote for Republican candidates would result in no vote cast in either of these elections, greatly favoring the two incumbents. Straight party voting should be eliminated in Iowa, as it has in many other states. The overriding goal with all three of these reforms is to allow voters to select the best possible candidate for each position, whether that be an incumbent or a challenger, a member of one of the two major parties, or a third party candidate. I can see no downside to such reforms.
12. Increase transparency and accountability.
Two of the best means to achieve greater oversight is the vigilant and informed citizen, and a free press. Greater transparency is essential in this regard. We do not need another committee, another level of bureaucracy. Every budget, every spending program, and all state department activities should be required to be published online, in a clear and concise, but comprehensive, format, for all Iowans to access. In addition, every proposal for a new program, or expansion of an existing one, should be accompanied by Constitutional justification for its creation or expansion. We need to justify why it is necessary to take money from Iowans for these programs, rather than letting Iowans decide for themselves how to spend their own money. If money is taken from Iowans for government programs, we should feel obliged to tell every Iowan to what use that money has been put, and how that use was of more value than any use to which the taxpayers themselves may have applied their money.