Transgendered okay in the military, but sex change surgery should not be paid for by taxpayers.

A transgendered person should be eligible to serve in the military, just like just like every other man or women, and just like every other gay or straight person.  If they are qualified to do the job, then government should not discriminate against them based on their transgendered status.  That does not mean the military or taxpayers should foot the bill for sex change operations.  Just as being transgendered is not a disease, surgery to to change a person’s sex is not a medical necessity.  Transgendered folks will can be completely healthy without a sex change operation.  So, sex change operations should be considered elective, and not be required to be covered by any insurance plan, including that of the military.

Be careful about providing charity to the developing world.

It is true that in many cases, our providing of charity to the developing world undercuts the development of local providers. When we provide food, it undercuts local farmers. When we provide shoes, it undercuts local shoe sellers. When we provide eye glasses, it under cuts local eye glass sellers. We must be very mindful about the unintended consequences of our charity. Yes, we need to provide temporary, life-saving disaster help, but we must be very careful about what we provide beyond that.

Related Register article:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/07/24/doctor-should-shift-model-charity-health-care-development/492348001/

Church free speech okay – no charitable tax deduction for donors

Churches and their leaders should be free to  speak out for or against candidates for political office.  Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for all, and especially for political or religious speech.
What our government should NOT do is allow a charitable tax deduction to donors who contribute money to churches that advocate for or against specific candidates.   If churches want to be treated just like other organizations that advocate for or against specific candidates, donors should be willing to give up their charitable tax deduction for contributions they make to those churches.
If churches are allowed to advocate for or against candidates and donors are given a charitable tax deduction for contributions made to such churches, then it would only be fair to give tax deductions to all donors to political organizations.  Better to not give the charitable deduction to any of them.
Related Register article:

Unlimited cost of care under the ACA health insurance policies?

In The Des Moines Regiser’s report about Wellmark getting out of the health insurance market for individual policies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), they reported, “Forsythe (CEO of Wellmark) cited a single Wellmark customer who has a rare genetic disease that is costing more than $1 million per month to treat.” One person – A million dollars a month.  (See link to article below.)
One of the fatal provision of the ACA is the requirement that there be no limit in health insurance policies on how much can be paid for any individual’s care. No limit. Should we really expect others (society) to pay a million dollars a month for the care of ourselves or our family members? If you help to pay that much for someone else, then won’t you expect the same to be paid for you if you have the need? How can that be sustainable? Who gets to makes decisions regarding who we pay for and who we don’t? Unfortunate as it may be, it is a reality of life that we cannot afford, even as a society, to pay for everything we want. To the extent that those decisions, including limits on health insurance policies, can be made privately and voluntarily, we will have a more just, civil, and sustainable society.

We are over-licensed. We do need to reduce licensing requirements in Iowa.

Contrary to the opinion of almost every person who already has a government required license to work, many of the licenses required by the State of Iowa are not only unnecessary, their primary purpose seems to be to protect existing licensees against competition, rather than to protect the public.

I am sure that certain state licensing requirements do help to ensure the safety and quality of the service provided, but in almost all cases, private certification programs could serve the same purpose without involving the use of force by government, and without giving government backed protection to existing licensees.  A great example of this is Certified Financial Planners (CFPs).  Financial professionals who want to hold themselves to a higher standard can get this private certification, and then advertise that fact.  The same is true of Realtors.

I’m sure that many licensed professionals also have various college degrees, private certifications, and other professional credentials.  In many cases, these private credentials should be sufficient.  Those who have them should advertise the fact, and not ask government to prohibit others from competing against them.

 

 

Register link:  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/03/19/professional-licensure-protects-public/99176434/

Don’t extend school infrastructure for 21 years – to 2050!

The Iowa House of Representatives should definitely not pass HF 230 – to extend the school infrastructure sales tax for another 21 years – to 2050!

In 1998, we were told that the 1% local option tax for school infrastructure would be temporary – for 10 years.  In 2008 the temporary tax was changed from a local option to a state-wide sales tax, and was extended for another 22 years – to expire in 2029.  Even though we still have 12 years left of the tax, school districts are pressuring the legislature to extend the tax for an additional 21 years!

Why would they want to do this?  Because years ago, they borrowed against the future taxes and have already spent the taxes that will be collected during the remaining 12 years.  If the tax is extended again, you can bet that some school districts will again quickly borrow against the future taxes and spend the money decades before the taxes are collected.

Do we really need this much money for school infrastructure.  Some school districts might need the money, but it appears that many school districts are flush with money and already have excellent facilities.  We really should wait until 2029, then allow local school districts have their own local option tax if the local taxpayers believe there is still a need.

No proof that unions help education of students.

In his essay in the Des Moines Regiser, T.J. Foley made at least two errors in the conclusions he drew from the statistics he used in his essay opposing changes in collective bargaining as it applies to teachers.  (See link below.)

First, assuming it is true that test scores are higher in schools with unionized teachers, he provided no evidence that the existence of unions is the cause of higher test scores.  It very well may be that unions are more often present in larger cities with higher incomes and larger schools, and that the higher scores are caused by those factors rather than the fact that a union is present.

Second, assuming it is true that the average teacher in Iowa earns 7% less than median household income in Iowa, that statistic is meaningless.   Teachers are individuals and many households have more than one earner.  Comparing individuals to households is simply not valid.

It is very difficult to say whether it would be better or worse for students if teachers lose some of their collective bargaining power.  T.J. Foley’s essay did not clarify that issue.

Link:  http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/abetteriowa/2017/02/09/dismantling-collective-bargaining-wont-help-todays-students/97698620/