If she were really a good politician she would read the state much better than she has ever done. I think she is a smooth talker when it comes to encapsulating right wing talking points and little more.
Great comment, Kathi. A good or great political leader (as opposed to being merely successful legislatively) means using your power to advance the wellbeing of your entire constituency, not just those you favor. Or to pursue your own personal priorities.
The first time I met Kim she and the governor came for a presentation given by a representative from No Kid Hungry sponsored by Bread For The World during the World Food Prize Week. The presenter told us of the reality that too many children go to bed hungry every night in our country. She told us about the teachers who would use their own money to send healthy food home with students so they would have something to eat over the weekend. She told us of the paradox of hungry children being overweight because their parents had to stretch the SNAP amount each month to in order to make it to the end of the month. They couldn’t afford fresh food so they bought unhealthy snacks simply so their children could eat. It was a decision born out of desperation.
When I program was over I walked out with Kim and we talked about all we had just heard. We talked about the need to give families access to fresh fruit and vegetables so children had other options. She looked at me and said she looked forward to working with people in our state to address this need.
And then she turns around and refuses to feed children using the already available funds because too many of them are overweight. She knows better and she pulled the money anyway. She is such a disappointment.
It would seem that Iowa has come a long way from the huge deficits of former Democrat Governors. Giving people choices of where to send their children to school is not wrong, it's a limited free market and they spend their money where they deem best for their children.
To your point, Iowa was known as a difficult place to do business partly because of the tax environment. Leveling that playing field may attract business and people to work in those businesses.
The pendulum will swing the other way in the future. Be sure to keep that sharp wit handy to write how the minority party doesn't get their way and that's a bad thing.
Thanks for the comment, Mike. I always appreciate your viewpoint. I hope you know that. I was a bit puzzled, though, by your statement that Iowa has come a long way from the "huge deficits of former Democrat Governors." By law, Iowa governors are required to sign balanced budgets. It's been that way for years. Much different than the federal government.
You make a very valid point Ed. The budgets in years gone by were balanced by drawing down reserve funds to make up for the overspending. There was not a match between planned spending and revenues received.
The “balance” was accomplished by taking from tomorrow’s just-in-case money; the reserve funds by a multitude of names.
To be fair, this was a learned behavior from the Federal level. Look no further than the Federal Highway Trust Fund, Social Security, or a failure to return to lower FUTA rates when unemployment returns to low levels to name just a few.
It’s tough to say, “no” as an elected official regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on.
In closing, I’ve always loved the dialogue. It’s not misinformation from either of us, it’s learning and growing as a result.
I agree with you that previous governors, of both parties, relied on one-time money to help their budgets. And I, too, appreciate our dialogue. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
IOWA was once the educational mecca of the country---but, under Kim Reynolds we are now 46th in the country. Our public schools are failing due to lack of funding and now giving taxpayer money to Private schools---we now have a two-tier school system. Iowa has their own version of Project 2025, and Reynolds is the Ringmaster. No funding for mental healthcare, childcare, nursing home-care, and our poor infrastructure. Big the larger problem is the mainstream media feels she is the best Iowa governor even though Iowa is not drawing new business and new jobs. Poverty is growing and the GOP refuse to increase the minimum wage--which is $7.25 an hour. Across the river Illinois the minimum wage is now $15.00 an hour. Iowa is going backward, and nobody seems to notice.
A pretty good friend (a Trumper) and I were sharing a beer—shortly after she declined federal food doors. I mentioned I thought Kim was mean spirited. My friend, a decent, college educated person, was shocked (and he knew I am a pretty left of center D). Kim is truly an example of the queen not wearing any clothes…and her opposing party (D’s) have struck out in characterization of her, or at least swinging a missing. Thus, Governing, a good magazine (which I have been published in), did a poor job of providing some criticism of her actual policy impacts.
“Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.” ~~ Harry S Truman
If she were really a good politician she would read the state much better than she has ever done. I think she is a smooth talker when it comes to encapsulating right wing talking points and little more.
Great comment, Kathi. A good or great political leader (as opposed to being merely successful legislatively) means using your power to advance the wellbeing of your entire constituency, not just those you favor. Or to pursue your own personal priorities.
The first time I met Kim she and the governor came for a presentation given by a representative from No Kid Hungry sponsored by Bread For The World during the World Food Prize Week. The presenter told us of the reality that too many children go to bed hungry every night in our country. She told us about the teachers who would use their own money to send healthy food home with students so they would have something to eat over the weekend. She told us of the paradox of hungry children being overweight because their parents had to stretch the SNAP amount each month to in order to make it to the end of the month. They couldn’t afford fresh food so they bought unhealthy snacks simply so their children could eat. It was a decision born out of desperation.
When I program was over I walked out with Kim and we talked about all we had just heard. We talked about the need to give families access to fresh fruit and vegetables so children had other options. She looked at me and said she looked forward to working with people in our state to address this need.
And then she turns around and refuses to feed children using the already available funds because too many of them are overweight. She knows better and she pulled the money anyway. She is such a disappointment.
Ed,
It would seem that Iowa has come a long way from the huge deficits of former Democrat Governors. Giving people choices of where to send their children to school is not wrong, it's a limited free market and they spend their money where they deem best for their children.
To your point, Iowa was known as a difficult place to do business partly because of the tax environment. Leveling that playing field may attract business and people to work in those businesses.
The pendulum will swing the other way in the future. Be sure to keep that sharp wit handy to write how the minority party doesn't get their way and that's a bad thing.
Thanks for the article.
Thanks for the comment, Mike. I always appreciate your viewpoint. I hope you know that. I was a bit puzzled, though, by your statement that Iowa has come a long way from the "huge deficits of former Democrat Governors." By law, Iowa governors are required to sign balanced budgets. It's been that way for years. Much different than the federal government.
You make a very valid point Ed. The budgets in years gone by were balanced by drawing down reserve funds to make up for the overspending. There was not a match between planned spending and revenues received.
The “balance” was accomplished by taking from tomorrow’s just-in-case money; the reserve funds by a multitude of names.
To be fair, this was a learned behavior from the Federal level. Look no further than the Federal Highway Trust Fund, Social Security, or a failure to return to lower FUTA rates when unemployment returns to low levels to name just a few.
It’s tough to say, “no” as an elected official regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on.
In closing, I’ve always loved the dialogue. It’s not misinformation from either of us, it’s learning and growing as a result.
I agree with you that previous governors, of both parties, relied on one-time money to help their budgets. And I, too, appreciate our dialogue. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
IOWA was once the educational mecca of the country---but, under Kim Reynolds we are now 46th in the country. Our public schools are failing due to lack of funding and now giving taxpayer money to Private schools---we now have a two-tier school system. Iowa has their own version of Project 2025, and Reynolds is the Ringmaster. No funding for mental healthcare, childcare, nursing home-care, and our poor infrastructure. Big the larger problem is the mainstream media feels she is the best Iowa governor even though Iowa is not drawing new business and new jobs. Poverty is growing and the GOP refuse to increase the minimum wage--which is $7.25 an hour. Across the river Illinois the minimum wage is now $15.00 an hour. Iowa is going backward, and nobody seems to notice.
A pretty good friend (a Trumper) and I were sharing a beer—shortly after she declined federal food doors. I mentioned I thought Kim was mean spirited. My friend, a decent, college educated person, was shocked (and he knew I am a pretty left of center D). Kim is truly an example of the queen not wearing any clothes…and her opposing party (D’s) have struck out in characterization of her, or at least swinging a missing. Thus, Governing, a good magazine (which I have been published in), did a poor job of providing some criticism of her actual policy impacts.