Tag Archives: Iowa Congress

RE: “Third party isn’t charm for Iowa voters” says Gazette and Rod Boshart


Seems to me that the only press third-party candidates can get in the mainstream media is negative. That’s too bad. I would like to know how the Gazette and Rod Boshart came up with the conclusion that Iowan’s aren’t interested in third-party candidates? Is the writer only asking party players? Why is the comment section closed on the “Third party isn’t charm for Iowa voters” story? Why isn’t there a poll available? Are both parties worried about their status? Where do Iowan’s really stand?

“Two is company and three generally is a crowd when it comes to presidential politics in Iowa” I would like to know how the Gazette and Rod Boshart decided that third-party candidates didn’t matter in this election. Who did they ask? I haven’t seen any third-party candidates in the polls! I haven’t seen any third-party candidates in any debates or in the news!

““If ever there was going to be a year when you’d think you would have a credible third-party candidate, it would have been this year because the political system, particularly at the federal level, seems so dysfunctional, yet we have not had that,” said Des Moines attorney Doug Gross, a 2002 gubernatorial candidate in Iowa who is active in Republican politics.””

My question is if Gary Johnson wasn’t a legitimate candidate then why did members of the Republican Party file a law suit to try to keep him off the ballot? Something isn’t adding up here! Gary Johnson is not only a legitimate candidate he is also a qualified candidate who appeared as such in the presidential primary debates!

Who is Gary Johnson?

This election has been made into a three ringed circus in the State of Iowa by the GOP and now we want our third-party candidate included in the news media and the national debates. “It’s not the fault of Iowan’s that the GOP broke the media’s trust during the caucus“. If people are unhappy with the results then they need to get involved!

Even though the majority of delegates sent to Tampa from Iowa were there to represent Ron Paul our own Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds wouldn’t mention his name at all during the Republican National Convention that aired live on CNN. Instead of letting the public hear from Ron Paul, Clint Eastwood was given an empty chair to speak to. The two-party system is broke and voting for either party isn’t going to fix it!

Thankfully, there are third-party candidates suing for the right to air time.

I would like to know how the Gazette and Rod Boshart came up with the conclusion that Iowan’s aren’t interested in third party candidates during this election cycle or any other election for that matter! According to the Secretary of State as of September 2012 active Republicans total: 620868, the active Democrats total: 602636, and the active No Party voters total: 666279. Have the active No Party voters been polled? Is the Gazette and the two-party system presuming that the No Party voters will go with one or the other? With all the social media technology there is no way that everyone will be convinced that the two-party system is the only way to go.

If the public were informed about these third parties there would no doubt be an increase in interest!

I have carefully vetted the candidates for congress during this election and I will be supporting Greg Hughes. No one has ever heard of him because the media doesn’t cover third-party candidates. If they give one third-party candidate any air time they have to give it to the rest of the third-party candidates. I would rather hear from all the candidates than hear the same three ads air over and over and over.

This media problem isn’t limited to presidential elections. Nope, this happens in every election. Not one word has been uttered about the Independent candidate for Congress, former candidate for Governor, Greg Hughes. is a factory worker who chairs the Iowa Child Support Advisory Committee to the Supreme Court that has been a family advocate for many years. Greg Hughes is the only candidate for congress talking about issues that are important to the Iowan’s I know. The people I’ve talked to are tired of attack ads between the two attorneys and their PACS that are constantly being aired on television. I want to hear about Greg Hughes and what direction he would take District 1 if he were elected to Congress.

Who is Greg Hughes?

I was one of the Ron Paul delegates who went all the way through the process up to the state level. I am not interested in either establishment candidate and now I am working tirelessly to get the word out about our alternatives. Yes, we have alternatives. A vote for these alternatives is a vote against the two-party trap.


David v Goliath in Iowa’s First Congressional District


The choices we’ve been given by the two-party system have left us very little choice in the November election! Both of our congressional candidates are lawyers. If the only place you get information from is the television you’re really missing out on some potentially good candidates that could help us turn this country around! Why aren’t all the candidates going to be presented to us in the debates?

The two attorneys vying for our votes are busy spending their money to get you to vote for them in the 2012 election by airing attack ads against each other. Wouldn’t their money be better spent on telling us what they will do instead of telling us what the other one will do or has done wrong? Attack ads on television are expensive and annoying but with this money and their advertisements they have the ability to create a illusion that there is only two candidates in this race. I’ve heard enough attack ads between Romney and Obama! Lange and Braley just added to it!

Who is Greg Hughes and what does he believe in? Greg Hughes is a factory worker who spends his free time helping people who get caught up in the family court system. He believes in hard work, strong families, and fiscal responsibility. Greg Hughes has run a Tae Kwon Do school and has helped people through a volunteer pro-se clinic in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Greg Hughes helps people help themselves.

Our children and grandchildren cannot afford the perpetual debt that these politically savvy lawyers have gotten us into. “One of the things I think that bothers me the most is the destruction of the family unit.” says Hughes. “For example, a grandmother was denied custody of her grand-daughter. Why? Because she was “low-income”. “Since when was that ever a reason to take away a families rights?” “Meantime the courts give abused children to strangers everyday through the foster care system.” More stories about Iowa families are available on this webpage: http://www.usajudicialreform.com/ for more stories.

Iowa families have been through hell over the last twenty years. My best friend has had her children removed and returned three times by the Department of Human Services! Why? Because some social workers (who didn’t even have children of their own) decided that it would be in the “best interest of the children”. Family courts removed my best friends children from their mother and put them with strangers! One of her daughters was only five years old when the family courts placed her in a foster home. While she was in a house of strangers she was sexually abused! Instead of questioning the foster home the police and DHS went after family her members! DHS and the family courts ended up putting this little girl in a “sex offender treatment facility” when she was FIVE YEARS OLD. YES, AFTER SHE WAS ABUSED IN A FOSTER HOME! What kind of agency puts a five-year old little girl in a sex offender treatment facility after she was abused? The kind that doesn’t want to admit their own guilt for putting the child in an unsafe home that they chose! We need reform!

According to Hughes, the Chair of the Child Support Advisory Committee to the Supreme Court of Iowa “The Supreme Court is asking for an increase of $175 million of our tax money to continue running their ineffective dysfunctional court system that systematically destroys families.” Hughes claims that “nearly a billion dollars is circulated through our court system every year.”

“We have judges sleeping at the bench screwing up people’s lives! We’ve even had a judge with a brain tumor ruling on people’s livelihood!” said Hughes. “It’s time to retire bad judges and throw all the lawyers out of elected offices!”

I couldn’t agree more! This race is like the Local Option Sales Tax race in Cedar Rapids (both of them). The other teams have a lot of money to air attack ads but we aren’t asking for your money to run attack ads all we’re asking for is your vote in November. Vote Greg Hughes for Iowa Congress.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/28/281570/rep-joe-walsh-defends-not-paying-117000-in-child-support-this-is-where-real-america-is/?mobile=nc

Come check out Greg Hughes Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Greg-Hughes-for-Congress/489691757710448


“Freezing spending does nothing!” by Steve Rathje



“Freezing spending does nothing!”

by Steve Rathje on Friday, May 4, 2012 at 8:02am

Below is a piece I wrote as a Guest Column for the Cedar Rapids Gazette dated December 5, 2010. I’m reposting it due to its relevance after hearing comments made toward Gov. Romney and his role in doing what was necessary to ‘save’ companies while being employed by Bain Capital. After you read this piece, I think you’ll be asking yourself why some choose to belittle capitalism (however unintended), rather than explain as I have what really needs to be done. Gov. Romney did for Bain Capital exactly what my consulting firm does for some of it’s customers. When companies are going under and find themselves no longer able to compete in the ‘Free Market’ there are but a few choices to make, of which ‘no one’ wants to. I hope you’ll take a moment to read this and afterwards please drop a comment as I’d really like to know what you think.

On November 29th, President Obama announced that he was imposing a two-year freeze in the wages of federal employees, with the intention of saving $60 billion over the next 10 years.

Question; How does freezing wages at their current level actually provide a savings?

Answer; It doesn’t! To actually provide a ‘physical savings’ cuts not freezing, need to take place. Otherwise, what is being described as savings is merely, in all reality, preventative spending, two very separate things. This freeze as they call it is nothing more than a shell game to get taxpayers to believe that the government is serious about saving money and reducing spending.

Let’s look at this from a common sense point of view. Let’s say you own a company, and that company spends a million dollars a year on payroll, payroll that it can no longer afford. Do you freeze future wage increases to save or reduce capital expenditures? No! Rather, you cut current wages and benefits immediately while analyzing the necessity of the current labor force. All departments have to participate with unnecessary personnel from each department receiving a furlough. Duties are combined wherever possible. Feasibility studies are made to determine internal costs vs. subcontracted ones. Budgets are brought inline with revisions being made, and prices are cut to stimulate sales in order to boost profits and become economically solvent again.

Keep this in mind. The average wage of a federal employee is right at $100K p/year, that in and of itself is a recipe for disaster. Why, because federal employees produce nothing that can be sold at a profit. They are what we in business call indirect labor, that is labor that cannot pay for itself. This type of labor is what companies try to eliminate altogether or at the very least, keep to a bare minimum. Indirect labor merely adds to government overhead, which increases costs/taxes and doesn’t add anything to the GDP in the process.

Using 2009 numbers, which are more than likely, due to historical fact, the most accurate numbers we have that can be trusted, there are, as of January 2009, 2,748,978 civilian federal employees in the United States government. This is according to the Federal Employment Statistics published by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Employees with security agencies (CIA, NSA, etc) as well as the Military and National Imagery and Mapping Agency are not included in this number.

During this time, 97.6% of civilian federal employees worked in the executive branch of federal government with a total payroll that exceeded $275 billion per year.

So what should we do? First of all, let’s cut all federal employee wages, with the exception of the CIA, NSA, etc., as well as the Military, National Imagery and Mapping Agencies by 15% immediately. That in and of itself will save $41.235 Billion per year or $412.346 Billion over 10 years even if no reduction in federal employees ever takes place. In addition, all government pensions and benefits (except the aforementioned) must be reviewed and reduced to levels commensurate with industry standards. I would also strongly suggest a 25% reduction in federal employees once feasibility studies are completed by an independent agency or agencies, and a determination made as to how many federal jobs can actually be provided by private sector companies. Based once again on 2009 numbers, a 25% cut in personnel would reduce the number of federal employees by 687,244, with an income averaging $100K p/yr, reflects an annual savings of $68.724 Billion or $687.245 Billion over 10 years.

So to sum it up, reducing federal employees by 25% or 687,244, and immediately cutting the average wage by 15%, saves the American taxpayer $120.268 Billion p/yr or $1.203 Trillion over a 10 year period. Imagine the message that would send to friend and foe alike.

How many folks reading this article, have been laid off? How many of you have gone to work one day, only to find yourself being called into the office to receive a pink slip? No one, especially your employer, likes to be placed in this situation. But in order to remain in business and continue to produce a viable product to the public, drastic measures like these are unfortunately necessary.

We all know too well how the size of government directly affects the economic wellbeing of America. Government must be reduced wherever possible, spending must be reigned in and waste a thing of the past. The shell game that’s being played by our elected representatives must come to an end, because if it doesn’t, America as we know it will become nothing more than a pawn in a game of cat and mouse where there are no winners, only losers.