Democrats couldn’t defend their awful policies
Regarding Rekha Basu’s Nov. 17 column where she struggles to address the severe beating incurred by the left in the election:
The answer is simple, clear and basic. The majority of the electorate decided to select a candidate who had a solid record in the area of controlling gas, groceries and housing costs. That same group of voters wanted to end the influx of illegal immigrants bringing drugs, sex trafficking, and criminal activities into the United States.
Four years of the Biden-Harris administration was painful for America’s middle class. And candidate Kamala Harris offered little or no explanation for how she would correct the problems our country was experiencing. Harris even went so far as to say she “wouldn’t change a thing” from Joe Biden’s presidential policies.
Stu Bassman, West Des Moines
What if deportations weaken the workforce?
So Iowa, did you think how you were going to staff all those thousands of low-paying agriculture-worker positions when you went to the polls on Nov. 5? Your workforce pool is going to shrink by millions, with no replacements waiting in the wings. You are going to lose a large group of hard-working people.
Who would have thought that installing a new and very conservative government could spell the end to livestock confinements, and potentially a huge chunk of the Iowa economy?
Revisit this in four years.
Robert Freund, Greene
I’ll remember Ann Selzer for integrity and informativeness
The Register’s Iowa Poll has been iconic (as much as Iowa’s first-in-the-nation Caucuses). And its pollster, Ann Selzer, long regarded as one of the nation’s very best, always represented Iowa well in the national media. She is an Iowa treasure, and her good work will be missed.
My husband and I were involved in Democratic politics in Des Moines for a couple decades, and on the eve of the release of many an Iowa Poll, campaigns were abuzz about what it would say. Sometimes the poll made us optimistic; sometimes it helped manage expectations for what was to come.
It seems almost fitting that with all the unprecedented aspects of the 2024 general election, Selzer’s final Iowa Poll would be unprecedented in its way, too (even as most other pollsters herded their results). But it was also entirely consistent with her body of work in that it was conducted and presented with the integrity she was known for, which will be her legacy as a pollster.
Monica Fischer, Cedar Rapids
What, indeed, does Iowa have left to offer people?
The Register’s editorial Nov. 17 needs to be read in concert with Davenport native Mickey Sloat’s essay about her strong disinclination to return to Iowa to live. Neither the Register nor (the very smart) Sloat mentions big agriculture’s fouling of waterways, lakes, and (eventually) everyone’s drinking water. Potable water should be at the top of everyone’s list.
Between the Cedar Rapids paper and the Register there’s an article almost weekly describing the enormity of the problem. Donnelle Eller’s report on Nov. 14 was the latest.
Eller tells us, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources should add seven segments of the Cedar, Des Moines, Iowa, Raccoon and South Skunk rivers due to high levels of nitrate, a form of nitrogen that can be released into water from manure and commercial fertilizers.”
You can count on Gov. Kim Reynolds to ignore the EPA. Donald Trump will disband the EPA and threaten the regulators with jail time. If put to a vote, there’s a 60% chance Iowa voters would favor polluters over immigrants or a fulsome history curriculum for high school kids. That’s about the ration of red v. blue voters. I’m with Sloat. There’s not much left to recommend Iowa.
Gerald Ott, Ankeny
Legislators have spend 14 years ignoring voters on conservation
In the Register on Nov. 15 there was a long story about the high nitrate levels in over 577 water segments in the state of Iowa.
This includes the major rivers in Iowa, and the drinking water sources for the people of Iowa. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources had no comment.
In 2010, Iowa voters passed a constitutional amendment to allow a three-eighths-cent sales tax increase to pay for water quality projects and outdoor recreation, but the tax was never raised.
This is criminal on the part of the state government. We, the citizens, gave the government the vehicle and the money to make sure this contamination did not occur. We did it 14 years ago, and nothing has happened. How bad does it have to get before the state does what was asked and put in the constitution? Does no one care what happens to our children? Every year there are more rivers and lakes that are off limits for recreational use because of the water contamination.
Shame on our state government.
Jeanne O’Halloran, Des Moines
Kennedy’s views on vaccines are false and dangerous
President-elect Donald Trump wants to “shake up” the Department of Health and Human Services among a host of other departments. His current choice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most dangerous. Kennedy states vaccines don’t work and are dangerous. This is dangerous.
I can remember polio epidemics which killed many, especially young children. Many who survived lived only with the support of “iron lungs,” paralyzed in large tubes, for years. When the polio vaccine was introduced the rate of polio dropped drastically. Measles, rubella, whooping cough, tetanus, and mumps were also common before vaccines were developed. My interest in genealogy took me review death records in the public domain from the early 20th century. There were many instances of nearly whole families whose children died within weeks of each other infectious diseases, which thanks to vaccines are now uncommon.
There are occasional bad effects from vaccines, but these are uncommon. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than half a million Americans died than expected either directly or indirectly from the virus. Trump downplayed the statistics publicly while privately acknowledging the seriousness. To his credit Trump did fund development of the vaccines that helped reduce the death rates.
I am a retired physician who believes that vaccines are important. Don’t be fooled by people who disparage vaccines. Unless you are one of the few people for whom vaccines are contra-indicated, get your flu shot and COVID boosters. And also pray that Trump recants about having RFK be in charge of health policy in the United States.
David Cranston, Grinnell
Congress should rein in president’s tariff authority
President-elect Donald Trump plans to keep his promise to increase tariffs on all imports into the U.S. The benefits of tariffs to politically favored businesses and workers are greatly outweighed by the costs to those of us who do not benefit from or are harmed by the tariffs.
The primary purpose and benefit of tariffs is to allow protected businesses to charge higher prices, thereby preventing them from failing or allowing them to earn higher profits. This, in turn, saves jobs or allows for higher wages to be paid to politically favored U.S. workers. Tariffs are also a source of revenue for our government, which may be considered a benefit.
Usually, the costs of tariffs are paid by U.S. consumers of foreign products in the form of higher prices, which often disproportionately hurt the poor. (But it is also possible that the cost of tariffs could be paid for by foreign manufacturer if it causes them to lower their prices, which would defeat the purpose of the tariffs.) Also, U.S. companies that export products that include imported components will have higher costs resulting in lower profits, lower wages, and fewer jobs at those companies. If other countries retaliate by raising their tariffs on products imported from the U.S., that will also reduce the profits and jobs of U.S. companies that export their products. Finally, if tariffs are raised too high, they will stop imports, and our government will receive no revenues.
Many businesses that are subject to international competition will claim that their products are vital to our country’s security or that they need to be protected from “unfair” competition. Those claims should be carefully scrutinized. Businesses like to be protected from competition. And businesses that receive government benefits lobby hard to keep and extend those benefits. Also, in many cases, competition comes from countries that are friendly to the U.S. and can make us more secure if needed products are produced by more competitors.
Our Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs. For some good reasons, Congress has delegated much of that power to the president. Now, Trump appears poised to abuse that power. Urge your representatives in Congress to reduce the power it delegated to the president to prevent the excessive tariffs that Trump is proposing.
Kurt Johnson, Urbandale
Miller-Meeks shows the path on climate policy
The election is over. Although the political winds may have shifted, recent weather catastrophes and skyrocketing insurance premiums remind us that action remains imperative to save ourselves from the worst consequences of carbon pollution. Recognizing that climate change should not be a partisan issue, Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks recently joined 17 of her Republican colleagues to urge that the climate provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act be retained. We should thank Miller-Meeks and ask Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, as well as Reps. Zach Nunn, Ashley Hinson and Randy Feenstra, to join her in resisting calls to backpedal on climate progress.
John Waters, Des Moines
Trump’s victory margin was pretty tame
Donald Trump’s electoral victory over Kamala Harris was 312 to 226, and he and a lot of Republicans are calling it a “mandate,” indicating strong support for their fairly extreme plans.
Trump being Trump, he will probably soon be calling it the biggest mandate in history. This, of course was his election to a second term, so how did some other similar elections turn out. FDR’s second term was 523 to 8; Nixon’s second term was 520 to 17; Reagan’s second term was 525 to 13.
Those are mandates, folks.
Frank McCammond, Redfield
Democrats’ words belie their claims of tolerance
Democrats have called President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters deplorables, fascists, Nazis, garbage, and more than a few have suggested dismay that an assassin’s bullet missed its mark on Trump by a sliver.
Democrats call themselves the party of inclusiveness and tolerance. Maybe not so much. More like the party of hate, at least when it comes to Republicans. Yet they wonder why they got creamed in Iowa local, state and national elections. A hint: Hate doesn’t play well with Iowa values.
Patrick Ropella, Mason City
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Democrats couldn’t defend their awful policies | Letters
