Will legislators resolve to make a better Iowa this session, or will it just be more time slopping at the trough?

The end of the year is all about promises of righting the ship, of making our lives better, our world better, of starting things off with a clean slate, of forgetting about how last year we could have done things better - if only we'd given it just a little more effort. Promises, of course, are made to be broken, but it's always interesting to think - no, dream - about the perfect world we could create with a little self-discipline, with thoughtful planning, with an honest-to-God "do-what's-best" approach.

In Iowa politics, however, a new year holds a different promise: one that encapsulates true futility. Difference-makers have seldom ever made such little difference as they do here at home - especially in an election year. It's one part back scratching, one part back stabbing, one part grandstanding, and one part time wasting - in fact, one part for every congressional district we'll have come 2010 when the census takers figure out that Iowa is indeed a place to grow - old.

Forget about problems facing our waning population, derelict educational system, deteriorating small businesses, the worsening crops that once made our bounties some of the best in the world, our toxic water supply, and our overall poor fiscal and physical fitness, in Iowa, the rich get richer, and the paid-for, lying do-nothings who play Artful Dodger to their Fagin conveniently forget what it is exactly they convene to do every January: serve Iowans well.

Never mind that the state suffers mightily at the hands of those who play politics. If they don't play politics, they'll never get elected. And if they never get elected, they can't serve the people. However, when they do get elected, they need to stay elected in order to serve the people. But they can't stay elected without money. Nor can they do it by upsetting special interest groups. So they need to toe the line in order to get the chance to serve the people. And precious time is lost. And also lost is what we can only hope they ran for to begin with: true conviction for serving the people.

Statehouse politicians, please read this: It's never too late to try to fit back into those old jeans, to right the ship, to dream about creating a perfect world, or at least to work as hard as you possibly can to make it happen. It's all about the honest-to-God "do-what's-best" approach.

Ignore the death penalty debate. It's good politics, not good policy. Get smart about sexual predators and what to do with them. Tough talk is exactly that: talk. Say "no" to stupid ideas like covenant marriage. Say "yes" to ideas that fatten the state's coffers and make us healthier. And, again, genuinely try to remember why you wanted to be there in the first place, why you fought to get elected: to serve Iowans well. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. We've even made you a list of what's important, of what you should focus on this legislative session.

And if by chance you are unable to stay elected because special interest groups no longer back you or the big money ignores you, at least you'll have that "true conviction" thing going for you, and you'll know you tried and you weren't just some guy with his hand out, looking to play in the big leagues but unable to do so because you were always on your knees. You've got about 100 days to make a difference. For once in your life, do it.

Stop the state sugar daddy

While the nation focuses on the battles waging on Baghdad streets, there is a civil war underway within our own borders. And, now that the state legislators have taken aim at the invisible hand, it's the taxpayers who are getting slaughtered.

As Dave Swenson, ISU economic scientist, explains, the current system of job buying is a relatively new phenomena. The historic role of the government in economic development was simple efficiency: high-quality services, and reasonable taxes. But then, in the late 60s, inner cities were struck with urban blight, and the invisible hand needed a leg up from government coffers to get the economically deprived areas back on their feet. Then the 1980s hit and, with rural and urban economies alike suffering drastic transformations, panicked officials tossed the economic textbooks and let loose a flood of development incentives - from tax abatements to outright cash grants - which birthed a new generation of bizarre job buying. Then, the state pulled out the big guns: The Iowa Values Fund. When the Supreme Court struck down the authorizing legislation last year due to a misfiring veto, Republicans and Democrats alike panicked at the prospect of losing the tens of millions of dollars that they say had become a vital cash arsenal to keep the state competitive. Trouble is, turning the state into a sugar daddy is risky business.

"Our esteemed governor and a huge fraction of our other elected state and local officials," Swenson notes, "say something to this effect: Sure, we recognize that by engaging in this practice we are, for lack of a better phrase, buying development with tax dollars. But what's a guy to do? That's how economic development is now conducted across the U.S. - in vulgar terms, you have to 'pay to play.' And what are they paying? Taxpayer money. What does it cost? Between state and local total incentives, at least $500 million a year in Iowa.

"And now we've gotten ourselves to where there is actually a declared 'standing offer,'" he adds. "Any firm of reasonable size, regardless of other characteristics, can simply demand a basic level of state and local incentives, whether they need them or not, whether they are providing good jobs or not, whether they are a good fit for a community or not. My line is that those firms are either 'needy or greedy' and by my way of thinking neither is necessarily a good business citizen."

And Swenson isn't alone in his critique; economists across the country report that succumbing to the allure of needy and greedy businesses has not proven a net economic benefit. In fact, many suggest the opposite, that current practices are accelerating growth in areas that would have grown at the expense of those that are struggling, that such job-buying competitively penalizes already existing businesses and such rampant incentives leave taxpayers to pick up the bill for all the services that such cash-enticed businesses use but do not pay for.

Of course, it's understandable that Iowa doesn't want to be on the front line of disarmament. Even the National Federation of Independent Businesses points out, "it would most likely not be in the state's long-term interests to, in effect, unilaterally disarm, declare a truce and say Iowa is no longer going to fight in this war."

But, instead of taking the page out of the Bush playbook and staying the course, perhaps it's time to heed the advice of citizen groups who suggest that, instead of going for the big fish, they should look to homegrown talent and dedicate a minimum of 10 percent of the Fund to entrepreneurial farmers and small business development. But, even if we adjust our aim, it's time to uproot this notion that we're blazing some bold economic path with our annual $50 million in Values Fund give-aways.

"Our governor claims that the Iowa Values Fund represents a bold and aggressive step towards economic development leadership," Swenson says. "What baloney. If everyone else is doing it and you do it more, that represents what I call 'bold and aggressive followership.' In short, Iowa is out-following the rest of the nation. Not something to be really proud of."

Buckle down on DHS procedures

Typically, an atrocious crime takes place involving a child, scores of relatives and friends and babysitters come forward with tales of having warned the Department of Human Services, and lawmakers cry out for harsh penalties for those who abuse children. But why wait for the next little girl to end up on the slab? Why not nip the problem in the bud, so to speak? Why, instead of lawmakers grandstanding about getting tough on crime, not create a DHS that focuses on being preventive?

Sure the stories of the kids who fall through the cracks are few and far between; and, of course, we only hear of the really bad cases. But the fact remains that after dozens of calls to a DHS agent reporting life-threatening abuse by her daycare provider, 2-year-old Shelby Duis still ended up dead with massive head injuries, two broken hands and six broken ribs. Shelby was 2. And no one did a damn thing about it until it was too late. Sure it cost a few people their jobs and the offenders went to prison, but what about the complaints that the DHS claimed were "unfounded"? Was the agency's failure just plain laziness or was the staff spread too thin?

Five years after Shelby was put in the ground, it's a question 5-year-old Evelyn Miller's grandparents are asking. Evelyn was murdered and then tossed in the Cedar River earlier this year despite what family members say were repeated pleas to the DHS to "do something" to help the little girl who was being routinely brutalized. Sound familiar?

Evelyn Miller should be in first grade right now, on Christmas break, safe and warm at her grandparents' home. Instead, she's become a political pawn for talking heads who want Iowa to revisit the death penalty debate.

Instead of just talking tough and wasting time, though, how about a thoughtfully re-worked system that does away with peer assessment at the DHS and gets a little more brazen when it comes to protecting children from abusers. Simply put, with how things stand now, there are too many reviews and procedures and too much red tape when what is needed is more hard-nosed inquiries and less in the way of immunity. When someone cries out for help, people should come running. When that someone is a child, it is simply better to err on the side of caution.

Reverse course on gay marriage

Heaven forbid, two people who happen to share the same anatomy fall in love and want to enhance the already-frayed fabric of society by committing their lives to each other. But, since heaven doesn't hold water with "activist" judges, thank goodness we have folks like House Speaker Chris "Chicken Little" Rants to play God at the capitol, doing his best to make sure that pesky third branch of government doesn't get to interpret the Constitution before right-wing voters do.

With cries that the sky was falling as gay couples got married in states like Massachusetts and California, last year the House passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and Republicans are already squawking about prioritizing passage through the Senate in order to get the amendment to Iowa voters by 2007. Of course, the state already has a de-facto ban on gay marriage with a law that states marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, and Democrats say they will block debate on the issue. But redundancy be damned, and to hell with civil rights. Gay marriage is a God-send for a morally challenged Republican party. Just try to think of a better deal for conservative leaders: here's an issue that galvanizes the most vocal segment of the conservative demographic, keeps yielding political capital for multiple legislative sessions and then pays off in tangible form as anti-gay voters can feel Godly as they cast their ballots for a constitutional amendment.

And, Lord, just think of all the inspiring rhetoric. Hollow scare tactics of suburban families burning their marriage licenses and giving up on the entire social institution, because "Adam and Steve" got married. Playing up the completely unsubstantiated threat that, if gay and lesbian couples get married they will certainly raise children and then we'll have an entire generation of kids just craving the social stigma of being gay because they happen to have two loving moms. Hell, if the six gay and lesbian couples that filed suit for the right to marry in Polk County this month get their way, we may be subjected to a plague of locusts for our judicial sins.

But the real legislative issue here isn't a futile attempt to make the Iowa Constitution a document of discrimination in a cowardly sell out to a demographic that doesn't believe in evolution and thinks birth control is murder. We're better than that. Instead of kicking up controversy and digging a hole that we would, with time, surely repeal with embarrassment, legislators could begin moving forward, like so many other states, to make the Iowa safe and equitable for all citizens.

For instance, the GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force has been promoting specific steps lawmakers can take to stop the rampant harassment of gay and lesbians students, more than 90 percent of whom hear homophobic remarks and more than 30 percent of whom have been physically assaulted, according to a recent report. Legislators should stop being policy bullies, stop this circular logic that LGBT kids shouldn't be singled out for protection and mandate that school districts clearly define sexual orientation in their anti-bullying policies. Not to mention, Iowa still needs to add sexual orientation to the state anti-discrimination code to protect LGBT employees from discrimination in the workforce. And, to ensure such basic civil rights are enforced, policymakers should find some cash for the under-funded Civil Rights Commission, so the agency can do its job instead of being forced to leave complaints unattended, in some cases, for years.

As some activists point out, Iowans - even church-going Iowans - are far too smart to base their beliefs on cartoonish stereotypes and absurd scare tactics propagated by religious zealots and self-serving politicians. Iowans rely on personal experience and interaction to form their opinions, and, unless they're picketing at Planned Parenthood, they've probably met Adam and Steve. And, if they have, they'd probably be first in line to buy the new married couple a wedding present.

Merge dying rural school districts

Despite the fact that we have a Grant Wood depiction of a rural schoolhouse on our state quarter and the words "Foundation in education" etched into it, as well, it is no secret that Iowa's school system is in complete shambles. Our test scores are plummeting, we don't pay our teachers enough and we have nowhere near enough money to properly fund our educational system and the programs we need to remain even somewhat competitive. It's a simple matter of fact.

But here's what it also is: an easily fixable problem.

Seventy percent of Iowa's population resides in 10 metro areas, and those metro areas have stuffed classrooms but nowhere near enough money to fund their schools properly. Meanwhile, in our state's more rural areas, schools sit half empty with their own superintendents and principals and scores of unnecessary teachers, while down the road a spat, there is more of the same. It's a complete waste. Iowa (the 30th largest state in the nation) has 371 public school districts, which ranks it 16th nationally when it comes to the number of school districts. Does that seem a bit off kilter? You bet. And the kids in schools in places like Des Moines are suffering mightily because of it.

However, it doesn't have to be this way. All our legislators would need to do is create a minimum requirement regarding how many students are needed to keep a school open and a district operational. Take the schools and districts that do not meet the requirement and close their doors. And then send the kids to school on down the road to other schools and districts that are not letting the state get any bang for its buck, and let the best superintendents and teachers compete for the jobs that are left when the mergers have been completed. We can promise, the results would be staggering: the best teachers and school administrators being paid well to run a slimmed-down system that is funded properly by the state.

We can no longer afford to let the undeserving - districts, teachers and administrators alike - get fat off the state's dime, throwing tons of money at schools because some shit kickers in the state legislature and their families grew up there and are getting pressure from "back home" to keep the money heading down these roads to nowhere. This nostalgia-over-substance way of thinking is what got us into this horrendous mess to begin with, with obsolete districts going a long way toward dumbing down the rest of the state's students because their districts (like Des Moines) aren't getting their necessary share and are being forced to make cuts despite being weighed down.

Well, we've been in pretend mode long enough, and it's time to get smart. You want better students, better-paid teachers, top-notch administrators and the best programs to compete in a global marketplace that would, in its current state, eat our kids alive? Then we need to put the past behind us and begin to focus on the future. The areas of the state that matter most are paying a steep price, while rural school districts wallow in copious amounts of undeserved money like territorial pigs in shit. And our state's quarter should serve as a reminder - not of a proud past when our foundation was in education, but of what is truly killing our state school systems.

Expand the school year

And while we're on the topic of education - and while we're crossing our fingers that we can thoughtfully reach the conclusion that there is a way to make our schools strong again with brighter students and better-paid teachers - we'd be remiss to not point out that yet another way to better prepare Iowa children for the future would be to lengthen the school year.

While Japan sends its kids to school 240 days per year and most European nations have 210-day school years, American students typically attend school about 180 days per year. And while German students, in their four-year period of study that we would call high school, attend classes for 3,600 hours, American high school kids will rack up just over a third of that at around 1,450 hours. And by the time a Japanese student is finished with middle school, he or she will have spent more time learning than our students do when they are handed their high school diplomas. What does this all mean? Our kids aren't as smart as kids in other countries. Say anything you want about our teachers or our texts or the rural-urban debate here in Iowa; it doesn't mean a thing if you don't put in the time. Practice, after all, makes perfect.

It's not a new idea - business leaders, teachers and parents of all walks of life have been clamoring on about it for decades - but it remains a tough sell. Why? Who knows? Maybe, much like a higher cigarette tax and cleaner water and merging dying school districts and letting people who love each other get married, it makes too much sense. Maybe the greatest nation in the world can't get its arms around the fact that we need to re-think how we are teaching our children - no matter how little we are actually teaching them. Or maybe, somehow, somewhere, the politicians have got it into their thick heads that it's just going to cost too damn much.

But the real questions are these: How can we afford not to do this? How are our children going to compete globally when nations around the world are promoting educational systems that make ours obviously inferior? And while you stop to argue about that and about how dumb your kids are becoming and whose fault it is, the gap is only widening.

Truth be told, however, is that the only solution to truly building a successful Iowa begins and ends with our children. Make the schools better. Make the years longer. Make it count. And since no one else is really being all that aggressive when it comes to this notion of lengthening the school year, like the corndog, we can be out in front.

For a state that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars trying to attract businesses and residents, nothing says we're truly in the game like being serious about education. And nothing says we're serious about education like being the first state to buck the national trend that states kids need to be playing video games by the pool all summer long.

Empower farmers to get green

Let's face it: Iowa farmers have a well-deserved bad rap. Whether it's the dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico or the chemicals that poison local streams, it's easy to point fingers at farmers as environmental offenders. But in an industrialized system that thrives on fossil fuels, chemical application and soil depletion, it takes tangible state support to reverse the troubling trend and return farmers to their rightful status as stewards rather than threats to the environment. And, to do that, legislators need only keep up the green work.

Start with a no-brainer. In a notable collaboration between environmental and big-ag interests last year, legislators passed a pivotal tax credit for small producers of renewable energy. The problem? The program filled in the first couple weeks. To empower farmers to become the next generation of energy producers and ensure that renewable energy doesn't become the sole domain of the already too-powerful utilities, legislators should prioritize expanding that credit. And while they're at it, many suggest we should also expand a current sales tax credit on wind energy equipment to all renewable technology, so Iowa - a state that harvests as much sun as Hawaii - can help rural residents get off the grid with affordable solar energy options, as well as wind turbines.

Then there's the burgeoning ethanol industry, already touted by Republicans and Democrats alike as a boon to both energy independence and economic development. But simply throwing money at E-85 shouldn't earn legislators a green star. Already growing at a staggering pace, there's need to take a measured, not manic, approach to the evolving bio-fuel economy. And, while supporting Iowa farmers is a heck of a lot better than killing Iraqi civilians, ethanol - with it's reliance on industrial scale corn production - is not an environmental panacea. Instead of blindly following big donors like the Farm Bureau, legislators should also take heed of the "Green Bio-Fuels Policy" put forward by the research-minded Iowa Environmental Council, which doesn't dance around the reality that the ethanol industry isn't without its environmental impacts.

And finally there's the elephant in the rotunda: water quality. The good news? Legislators, and Gov. Vilsack, proved last session that they have the financial wherewithal to start attacking the water crisis. But there still needs to be more funding - not a trickle, but a flood. With the Department of Natural Resources poised to finally enact rational water quality standards that are no less than 30 years past due by federal standards, money will be needed to attack outdated septic and sewage systems and aid wastewater treatment plants in cleaning up their act, as well.

Still, farm runoff continues to be the most pervasive culprit in the rising number of impaired waters, and, thanks to research from the likes of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, experts know exactly how to combat that pollution. Trouble is, farmers can't be thinking about planting trees for buffer strips to protect water quality if they're drowning economically. The state needs to chip in, and, if DNR water quality hearings over the past several months are any indication, taxpayers are already onboard. Last year's $5 million for the Watershed Improvement Review Board was a good start. But, with nearly 50 quality proposals submitted to the board this year, that program needs to be expanded to keep pace with the local ingenuity. And while the $50 million Gov. Vilsack earmarked from the tobacco bond maturation will also help, the glass is far from being even half full. We're just beginning to paddle in the right direction, and it's up to legislators to make sure the financial boat stays afloat.

Take a time-out for rural residents

It was a classic case of pigs at the trough. One minute, Jeff Vonk, the director of the Department of Natural Resources, is suggesting the Environmental Protection Commission enact emergency provisions to give the DNR the rightful authority to curb or modify skyrocketing construction of animal confinements in the name of environmental integrity. The next, he's taking it back, tail between his legs, because the polluters needed more time to manipulate the process and, potentially, get legislators to protect their turf.

It's past time to end the cycle of paid-off legislators under-funding and undermining the state's enviro-cops ability to protect environment and rural citizens when it comes to animal confinements. With livestock operations going up at a rate of more than 600 per year, it's time to heed the call of grassroots groups and declare a moratorium on construction. The Vonk flip-flop this month not only proved in embarrassing form the influence of the animal producers but also highlighted the fact that his agency simply does not have the capacity - from a regulatory or human resources standpoint- to keep up with an industry that, left unchecked, has nothing less than an apocalyptic impact on natural resources and quality of life.

Under the current system of rubber-stamped construction and blind-eye enforcement, rural residents are suffering an endless day of reckoning - their air polluted with ammonia and the unbearable stench of shit-brimming lagoons, their streams fouled with phosphorus and nitrogen from legal applications and illegal spills of manure and their civil rights denied by an utter lack of local input in the siting of such confinements even if they are literally on the property line of someone's century farm. But perhaps even more frustrating is the fact that Iowa doesn't need to blaze a new, or particularly progressive trail here; we just have to follow the lead of other states that have already proved you need not sell out your citizens and environment to have a sizable animal industry.

What can be done? While a construction moratorium is in effect, legislators can first take back their balls and finally enact air-quality standards for confinements, which have already been backed by specific, in-state research. And no, we're not talking about brushing off the DNR with a laughable sum of money to "monitor" the problem under such restrictions that would make even Christie Todd Whitman scoff. It's time to get something on the books as other states have already done. Then, there's the utterly ridiculous pollution control property tax credit for confinements. According to that baffling logic, taxpayers are required to help cover producers' costs to ensure they have the ability to operate their private enterprise without decimating public resources. Many are in agreement that such costs should be incumbent on producers, and the tax sell-out should be repealed.

And, in addition to staying out of the DNR's business - keeping their political hands off of the desperately needed regulatory authority to curb construction in the name of the environment - legislators should give the DNR the ability to get repeat pollution offenders' attention by increasing the agency's maximum penalty fine. With just about every neighboring state armed with the ability to fine as much as $25,000, Iowa's paltry $10,000 cap is hardly enough to put the financial scare into folks who rape our collective natural heritage. And, to cap it all off, policymakers need to take care of voters by giving them a voice in the development of their communities. Right now, the mentality is "like it or not, here we come" when it comes to animal confinements. Iowa would be well served by following the lead of states like Minnesota and allow rural residents and governments to stop an influx of bad-neighbor factory farms and, if democratically approved, then hold them accountable for their operations. After all, the last time we read it, the Constitution was predicated on government by, for and of the people. Not the pigs.

Bring back our governor

We love listening to Tom Vilsack. No speaker does a better job of telling us how good we're doing and how we can do even better by working together. But we've heard it too many times now not to notice that our chief executive's oratorical skills exceed his execution, by a hypocritical mile. He owes us, because we bought his spiel twice and the bell now tolls for Iowa's future. See, Vilsack has been serving his hubris ahead of Iowa. That is why, despite his being a Democratic governor with a Republican Legislature, he has consistently put partisanship ahead of compromise. At what cost? This is how Vilsack's own Office of Management describes things: Iowa's growth in personal income is among the lowest in the nation, Iowa's unemployment rate continues to grow, total non-farm employment has also declined, the manufacturing sector has been a drag on the overall state economy, and low interest rates have continued to buttress consumer spending and helped spur activity in the construction sector.

So this is our question: unless Vilsack is taking credit for low interest rates, how can he be running for president on that kind of performance? We can't afford to wait for the inevitable collapse of Vilsack's Clintonian ambition - not with the group that's waiting to succeed him, and not after growth of personal income in Iowa hit its lowest mark in 50 years. Not after his shifting money from the general fund, and using up "rainy day funds" allowed the Constitutionally dubious spending of millions more dollars than the state collected. Not after his ambition jeopardized the future of Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses. And not after his appointments to head state departments proved to be utterly conflicted politicians who bestowed public favors on special interests.

Before Vilsack came to town, the Democratic Party here stood for something nobler than special interests and personal ambition. But it's never too late to get that old feeling back - especially from a leader who can make us feel so good.

A demographic time bomb is ticking in Iowa with population projected to stand still while aging dramatically. Vilsack first campaigned with a visionary courage to change this fate, promising to make Iowa the immigrants' free enterprise zone of mid-America. But once in office, he reneged faster than you can shoot a dove. Let him find that old courage. Let him call, finally, for legislators to force the mergers of some cities, counties and school districts with unsustainable population erosion. If he can make it happen - and he's the only one who can - it just might be that fantastic something he could run on.

Treat the problems in the corrections system

Stop by the YWCA on any given Wednesday night and a group of women are living proof that the corrections system works best when policymakers cut the tough-on-crime rhetoric and get to the root of the problem. At the Winners Circle, women who spent years behind bars are living new lives thanks to intensive treatment programs that made sure their incarceration was based on rehabilitation rather than hollow retribution.

The problem is that creating more Kelly Tilleys and Elvia Millers - women who aren't just staying out of prison but actively working to keep others from re-offending - takes funding. And, if history is a guide, burning the midnight oil to address tough changes in the corrections system is a whole lot harder than just building a shiny new prison and making life even more miserable for sex offenders. But, with Department of Corrections board members, the Attorney General and a varied base of citizen groups calling for fundamental reform in the handling of criminal offenders, it's time to get serious about funding preventative treatment and alternative courts for those railroaded into the prison system by drug abuse and mental illness.

While the prison break at Fort Madison will undoubtedly be front and center, Carlos Jayne, a leader in the multi-group Justice Reform Consortium, points out that the legislators' first priority should be to ask probing questions before spending big bucks on a new prison to replace the cavernous abomination the DOC calls the Iowa State Penitentiary.

"Picture a photo of a giant new maximum-security prison with all the trappings with a big price tag hanging from it: $80 million," Jayne hypothesizes. "Now picture in your mind all the empty buildings down at Knoxville VA Hospital and others around the state on various shut-down mental health institute campuses and various other places. Now, ask yourself, why we would want to even consider spending $80 million on a new maximum security prison anywhere in Iowa when we could spend the $80 million on ways to get people out and keep them out. What about the fact that Anamosa was built to maximum security prison standards? Couldn't some refurbishing there get us out of the aged monstrosity at Fort Madison? With attention to the ways in which we could be smart about public safety through treatment and other rehabilitation methods, Iowa's prison population could be reduced to a size where we could use one less institution rather than thinking about building another one."

And top state officials are at the ready with treatment and rehabilitation proposals that will not only root out the impetus for the most common crimes, but also save money in the long run. Take Attorney General Tom Miller who, last week, outlined a specific plan for a $17 million increase in spending for drug treatment, rightly pointing out that, "The number one thing we can do to fight crime is fight drugs, and the number one thing we can do to fight drugs is to do a better job with drug treatment." Even with legislators making the meth epidemic a priority, funding for drug treatment has actually dropped by 13 percent since 2001, even as a drastic percentage of Iowa inmates continue to be incarcerated for drugs, with a majority of them entering the system with serious substance addictions. And in addition to addressing more attention to treatment facilities, the AG suggests spending more on drug courts - modeled after successful examples like that of Polk County Judge Karla Fultz - which would divert offenders from costly prison terms and provide strict oversight and sanctions while also offering treatment.

And, perhaps even more of a crisis in the corrections system is the number of inmates suffering from mental illness. Nearly 20 percent of those behind bars have mental health needs but, even when fully staffed, DOC has but three psychiatrists and a critical lack of treatment; not to mention a compassion-deprived structure that deems suicide attempts and behavioral disorders a disciplinary violation that warrants an admonishment from an administrative judge, rather than a productive psychological intervention. With reports from the state ombudsman's office and an outside medical expert respectively revealing a dire need for significant reform within the corrections system treatment of the mentally ill, advocates say there is an urgent need for increased funding to account for the treatment both inside and outside the prison gates. Not only does that mean greater political will and funding to keep inmates safe and working towards recovery while they're behind bars, but re-evaluating a system that releases ex-offenders to a barren treatment landscape and sends them on their way with only one month's worth of meds, virtually begging them to re-offend. It also means taking a serious look at instituting mental health courts - modeled after the success of drug courts - that would divert low-level offenders whose crimes are influenced by mental illness from spiraling downward in the corrections system and instead place them in treatment programs that will give them the resources to prevent future crimes.

Yes, bolstering community-based mental health programs to serve such courts will mean significant funding increases from state coffers, and one legislator has already been quick to ask what portion of his budget the Attorney General would be willing to give up to fund that $17 million in drug treatment. But snide remarks serve little purpose, and simply throwing up our hands and saying rehabilitation is too expensive will cost us dearly in the long run. As Jayne rightly points out, without taking a proactive approach to treatment and prevention, that new prison will fill up the day after it opens, anyway. And taxpayers won't just be $80 million poorer, but right back where we started.

Pass a cigarette tax increase

We're stumped on this one. Is it the fact that fewer people would smoke and be healthier or is it the millions of dollars for state programs that bothers Iowa legislators who fight tooth and nail to kill a tax increase for cigarettes? Being healthier, any reasonable individual might think, shouldn't bother them. And with all of the complaining that constantly goes on about how much money we don't have, the financial side of it shouldn't bother them either. And at the end of last year's legislative session, it seemed like a done deal, a slam-dunk. It was just a matter of how much would be raised - 36 cents, 60 cents, 80 cents, a buck - and how much good it would do us.

But then, like a blue cloud of Marlboro smoke on a windy day, it was - poof - gone.
Never mind that polling suggested a majority of Iowans want to see the tax increased, our Medicaid and healthcare programs aren't up to snuff, smoking-related illnesses continue to spread like cancer, and that studies show nine of every 10 smokers start the habit as children, Republican leaders in the Iowa House ignored a bill passed by the Senate that had the governor's approval and ground the issue out like a butt under their collective toe. Why? Because Republican leaders in the Iowa House said it was just another tax, that it wasn't needed to balance the budget, that it would threaten the economy of border towns like Sioux City where Speaker of the House Chris Rants resides.

And they were right. It would do all of those things. But are any of those excuses powerful enough to stop the saving of the lives of our sick and our children? Rants & Co. seemingly do not care and have already promised to not bring the issue up for debate in '06. Rants & Co. seemingly do not understand that one can never be too healthy or too rich. And Rants & Co. need to make sure they are sitting on stuffed war chests for next November's elections. And without the money from big tobacco and convenience and grocery store moguls who want to keep their smoking customers right here at home and not crossing state lines for cheaper cigarettes, next November becomes far too risky of an endeavor. Remember, you can't "serve" the people if you aren't there, which sadly enough usually means you end up not serving the people at all.

Comment on this story | Return to top