Christmas Letter 2015

Merry Christmas to our friends and family!

Another year has gone by quickly. Hope all is well with you and your loved ones as we enter this holy season.

Here’s what’s been happening in our family…

Justin is working as a lawyer and Rachael as a dietician in the Twin Citiessandy and dean area. Rachael also started a part-time photography business at www.beyoutifulphoto.com. She’s been kept busy shooting weddings, family portraits, and senior photos. She also took time to take this picture of Dean and I, which we needed for our church pictorial directory.

Sure is nice having a professional photographer in the family!

Probably the biggest event in the family this year is that we have another one graduated from college! Louis graduated in May from Iowa State University with a degree in political science and a minor in history. He is working for the circuit court in St. Louis, Missouri. I now have three kids in three states. It’s getting tougher and tougher to get us all together in one place. St. Louis is a six-hour drive from Lawler, so it still works for him to get home when he has a three-day weekend. He was home for Thanksgiving, and will be home again for Christmas.

Lou Grad

Olivia is in her third year at Iowa State. She’s studying supply chain management and economics. The college has the saying, “Choose your adventure,” and Olivia has been taking that quite seriously. This summer she interned for Land O’Lakes, and the internship culminated in a trip to Africa. She was learning about food insecurity issues in the world, and tackled it from a logistics point of view—trying to implement better ways to store and transport food in order to reduce food waste.

FB_IMG_1436272498055

I love this picture because it shows that no matter who you are or where you live, everyone loves a selfie.

For Dean and I, we’re still farming and running a repair shop in Lawler. We did get in a couple of glorious Minnesota fishing trips this summer. Being surrounded by all the beauty that nature has to offer was so good for the soul. Now I know why Mom and Dad made Minnesota fishing trips a priority in their lives. And I actually caught fish. Gotta give a shout out to friends, Paul and Julie Rausch, for teaching me how to catch a lunker!sandy fish

My biggest news, though, is that I made good on a 2014 New Year’s Resolution to start a blog. I write commentary once a month about politics, religion or culture (three safe topics!) at www.movingtheconversationalong.com. I converted a small bedroom upstairs into my office. There’s barely room for a desk and chair, computer and printer, and rocker and footstool—but I love it. Some of my happiest moments this year have been reflecting, reading and writing in my little hobby room.

For those of you who follow my blog, you might have noticed that my blog went dark in August. Something happened in August. Dean’s mother, Edna, passed away, and it took the wind out of our sails. She had been battling Alzheimer’s for a couple of years, but I think everyone felt they had much more time left with her. And so, her sudden passing was a shock. Alzheimer’s is a devastating diagnosis for anyone, but it seemed especially cruel for Edna because she was such an absolute force in life before the disease. She’s reunited now with two that she was missing so much—her son, Dana, and her granddaughter, Melissa. Rest in peace, Edna.

Faith, family and friends. Honestly, what else is there?

I hope you are able to celebrate the birth of Jesus with all the very important people in your life—total happiness with your total family.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Love,

Sandy and Dean

Time to renew unaffordable health insurance

It’s the least wonderful time of the year, when it comes to renewing individual health insurance.

obamacare

Image by Shutterstock

Before Obamacare, millions of families in this country were doing the right thing—responsibly purchasing individual health insurance within a free market. And paying for it themselves, without the help of a government subsidy.

Under our “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” policy, our family’s monthly premium for a $5,500 deductible was approximately $600 in 2013, $650 in 2014 and $700 in 2015. Increases every year, but manageable ones.

The monthly premium for 2016 will jump to nearly $1,000. There are fewer and fewer of us in these remaining, old plans, and the premiums reflect it. In the past, we were able to shop around for other policies with various coverages and premiums that would best suit our family.

Now, our only option is Obamacare.

To participate in the Affordable Care Act exchange program, our family’s monthly premium would be $1,600 for a $6,700 deductible. Not very affordable.

The majority of Obamacare enrollees, 86 percent, take advantage of government subsidies to get monthly premiums down to a reasonable rate. But we, and many others, took pride in purchasing our own insurance before Obamacare without subsidies.

You give that up with Obamacare. It sends the message to families that they’re not capable of taking care of themselves, that they need the government to do that for them.

Obviously, the old ways weren’t perfect either. Underwriting for pre-existing health conditions in the individual market meant many were simply unable to secure insurance.

There might have been another way, another solution, without the government becoming so heavily involved with nearly one-fifth of our economy.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are about 130,000,000 households in the country. Included in that number are the poor and the elderly. Medicaid and Medicare are in place to protect these vulnerable groups.

The remaining households are workers. Many receive some type of health insurance through their place of work, where the employer contributes to a portion of it. And it’s this type of group insurance that doomed the individual health insurance market. With fewer in the market needing individual health policies, insurance companies would underwrite for pre-existing conditions—keeping their plans, funded by smaller numbers, solvent.

A movement away from employer-funded group insurance and toward individual and portable health insurance—where every family unit purchases its own health insurance in a competitive market—may have been a better solution. Imagine tens of millions of households purchasing health insurance policies from hundreds of competing insurance companies offering dozens of options. It may have better provided competitive rates and satisfying plans for all. Middle-aged couples could have selected a plan that didn’t include costly, maternity coverage. Young, single adults could have chosen an inexpensive major medical policy. Consumers would have been free to make all kinds of coverage decisions that were best for their families—not dictated by a group employer plan or by Obamacare.

In the current environment, this would be tough to change. Obamacare penalized employers ($100 a day per employee) who didn’t offer a group plan but were providing some type of reimbursement to employees who were purchasing health policies off the individual market. On the other hand, employers who contribute to a group plan are rewarded with tax breaks.

In a world without Obamacare, the opposite would be more sensible. Employers who reimburse employees, in some way, for individual health plans should be rewarded with tax breaks. Employers who contribute to group plans, which harm the individual market, should lose tax breaks.

Under this scenario, employees would still receive a health care benefit from their workplace if employers were allowed to reimburse them, in some way, for individual plans. What’s different is that employees regain control of choosing a plan that’s right for their family. And in this highly mobile world, individual and portable health insurance would make it easier to change jobs—or even start a business—because insurance would travel with you. You’d own it.

Some lessons learned, though, from Obamacare would be useful in moving away from group plans and toward more individual policies. Eliminating underwriting is one. With many more customers entering an individual health insurance market, it would have been far easier to spread the risks and absorb costs associated with pre-existing health conditions. Also, requiring all individuals to have some type of health insurance or be subject to a reasonable fine was another step in the right direction. If you have a car, you’re required to have car insurance. If you have a body, you should be required to have health insurance. Eliminating underwriting and requiring all individuals to be insured go hand in hand. Otherwise, it would be tempting not to purchase health insurance until you became unhealthy.

The federal government could also help a movement toward individual plans by allowing health insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition, and by enforcing antitrust laws against monopolies.

Fostering growth in the individual market, instead of decimating it, might have been a more workable and less traumatic upheaval in the health sector.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world today. We have Obamacare. And monthly premiums of $1,600.

Groupthink doesn’t belong in our public universities

Telling someone he’s going to fail before he starts isn’t very academic.

And yet, that’s the position of the University of Iowa faculty over the hiring of Bruce Harreld as its president.

As if to prove its point, a survey conducted by the UI chapter of the American Association of University Professors showed that 98.2 percent of the faculty felt Harreld was unqualified for the position.

But rather, what it really suggests is that groupthink is alive and well in our Iowa universities.

If the survey asked for the correct answer to a math question or something factual and with only one right answer, it would be understandable to see adherence at 98.2 percent. (Even some college professors can be mathematically challenged.) But the question of whether or not Bruce Harreld is qualified for the job as president of the University of Iowa is a matter of opinion. How, then, can it be possible that only 1.8 percent of the faculty would have a differing opinion?

Groupthink is defined by PsychologyToday.com as a phenomenon that, “…occurs when a group values harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation.” It’s also something that every 100-level political science course will teach you to avoid.

Image by Shutterstock.

Image by Shutterstock.

Parents send their children to college to become critically thinking adults. That goal seems tougher to accomplish if professors appear to so willingly engage in groupthink.

Bruce Harreld was a non-traditional candidate. Although he has academic experience by teaching at Harvard Business School for six years, his management experience is in the private, business sector.

And he’s not the first one. According to the American Council on Education, “…the share of presidents whose immediate prior position was outside higher education has increased since 2006, from 13 percent to 20 percent.”

What hasn’t changed much is the skill set required to be a president of a university. The ACE reports, “Presidents cited fundraising, budgets, community relations, and strategic planning as the areas that occupy most of their time.”

Professors have experience teaching. Managers have experience managing. It seems reasonable to consider someone with management experience from the business world.

The private sector is not the enemy of our public universities. The University of Iowa Foundation, an organization whose purpose is to raise funds through private contributions, is in the midst of a campaign that has raised 1.5 billion dollars for the university. This is, rightfully, heralded as a great achievement. When it comes to the running of a university, it seems that mining money from the private sector is acceptable to the faculty, but it balks at mining the type of mind power that produces those kinds of financial results.

Let’s revisit the survey. Before answering “no” to the question of whether or not Harreld was qualified for the job of president, the faculty might have considered the following, critical reflections…

  1. What are the primary job responsibilities of the president?
  2. Why is there an upward trend, nationwide, of hiring non-academics as presidents of universities?
  3. If it’s acceptable for the university to take money from the private sector, why is it unacceptable to consider talent from the private sector?

And finally…

  1. He’s just starting his new position. Should he be given a chance?

Every tenured professor was once a humble applicant, until someone gave him or her a chance.

Bruce Harreld may fail as president of the University of Iowa. If he does fail, he should be fired. He might also be the right leader at the right moment for a great university. Time will tell.

Until then, let every professor engage his or her students with the idea of groupthink and how people can so spookily and easily fall prey to it—even highly educated individuals.

Because learning how to be critical thinkers, is something that students deserve from an institution of higher learning.

Sundays and other days

The third commandment sounds easy.

The simple way I learned about it as a Catholic was to remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day. Most importantly, that meant going to church every Sunday. The obligation was never hard to oblige. I’ve always enjoyed going to church, even as a kid.

But what about after church?

Exodus 20, from the Old Testament, doesn’t leave much wiggle room. “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. Six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, your God. No work may be done…In six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord has blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

Refrain from work. When possible. Many must work on Sundays—health care workers, public safety employees, service industry staff—and I’m thankful they do. Some people must take a second job and work weekends just to meet their financial responsibilities and to provide for their families. But the message is clear—don’t work on Sunday if you don’t have to work.

I like to putter around the house on Sunday—doing a few household chores and yard work. It makes me happy to rack up little accomplishments that got let go during the week and to restore some order back into our family’s home and life. And while I respect businesses that close on Sunday, I’m thankful that others are open because sometimes it’s the best day to get groceries and restock the refrigerator for the coming week. Sundays can also be great days to go shopping with my daughter or to compare fantasy football notes with my sons.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that in addition to the obligation to worship, “The institution of the Lord’s Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social and religious lives.”

The New Testament speaks to keeping the Sabbath in several passages as well, but it was John 5:17 that grabbed my attention recently, while reading the Gospel.

We know the story of how Jesus cures a paralytic on the Sabbath, and of how the unbelievers begin to persecute him for it. Healing is considered work, and work is not allowed on the Sabbath. What some may not know is the response Jesus makes because John 5:17 is not included in the three-year rotation of readings for the Sunday Mass. Jesus says, “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work.”jesus cures

Scholars believe that Jesus’ response has more to do with his desire to convey that he is the Son of God to the unbelievers than it is about making a statement about Sabbath laws.

Still, it got me thinking. My Father is at work until now. The Father’s work of loving and caring for us is never done. So I am at work. The Son’s work of conveying that love is a constant invitation.

Continuous and not cyclical.

Cyclical is how we are taught to think of the third commandment. For six days we work. Then we don’t. For one day we honor the Lord. But then…

I buy into the continuous way of thinking. I believe we’re all lifelong learners, faith formation is a journey, and that love never ends. I more easily relate to this fluid, and not intermittent, way of thinking.

Maybe it’s enough to worship the Lord as a community of believers on Sunday and spend the rest of the day doing good—for others and for ourselves. Whatever that looks like, for each individual.

The other five or six days, we must earn a living. But for most (with the exception of parents with young children!), this doesn’t require a 16-hour work day. We can hopefully carve out a bit of time, even on work days, to rest and reflect on the goodness of God.

I’ve often felt a subtle disconnect with the third commandment, but I couldn’t articulate why until I reflected on this passage. It’s not that keeping the third commandment is any great burden. It’s that the goodness of God can be found in every day of the week, just as we can find goodness in our efforts and entertainment after the Sunday Mass. We can’t miraculously heal people, like Jesus does. But we can heal others through the power of presence—building up relationships by just connecting and being there for them. And realizing that some of our Sunday work is really just love in action—showing we care for others by what we do for them.

My Father is at work until now, so I am at work.

The tension with the gender card

Image by Shutterstock.

Image by Shutterstock.

A small, local newspaper produces an annual “Women in the Workplace” special issue. I never paid much attention to it until the paper called to interview me for the upcoming edition. Every day of the past six years, I thought of myself as the owner and manager of a repair shop. The phone call rattled me into thinking about my gender—that I’m a female owner and manager of a repair shop.

There is no annual “Men in the Workplace” issue, so what special thing is going on here? Is it that women are in the workplace or that women are in the workplace? Either way, it implies that something surprising or unusual is going on here. And as long as this type of thinking continues to be the norm, women will have a harder time being recognized and rewarded based on merit alone—an earned and no gender-based kind of success.

The hometown newspaper wasn’t isolated in its strategy. Fortune magazine recently profiled the “50 Most Powerful Women” on its cover. Not the 50 most powerful leaders. And there are several organizations whose only purpose is to get more women elected and help women become more successful in the workplace.

It’s because collectively we’re not there yet. Sheryl Sandberg in “Lean In,” shares that, “Women hold about 25 percent of senior executive positions, 19 percent of board seats, and constitute 19 percent of our elected congressional officials.”

Even though, as an individual, Sandberg doesn’t wake up thinking, “What am I going to do today as Facebook’s female COO…,” she understands that a shift in thinking is required before we see female leaders as just…leaders.

Collectively, advocating for women’s issues and rights must remain. It still needs a voice. But using and playing the gender card, as an individual, in order to achieve personal success isn’t helpful. Earning is better than getting.

The tension is that collective change—more women leaders—happens when enough purely, individual successes occur.

We have several candidates running for the highest office in the land. Two are women—Republican Carly Fiorina and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Clinton announced her presidency by saying, “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I will be the youngest woman President in the history of the United States!”

Cringe. She’s smart and tough. There’s no need to call attention to her gender.

When asked a question at the last Republican presidential debate about which woman she would like to see grace the $10 bill—a question that had nothing to do with policy—Fiorina didn’t take the shiny, gender offering. Standing on her merits and not her gender, she responded, “We ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group.”

Better. Smart and tough. And fair.

According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans believe that, “…women are every bit as capable of being good political leaders as men.” It also reports that, “73 percent expect to see a female president in their lifetime.”

So far, that thinking hasn’t translated into votes. But it will come.

Not because it’s some unofficial time in history to have a first ever in the Oval Office, but because the most qualified person was elected President of the United States of America. A leader.

Who just happened to be a woman.

Public education: When it’s everyone’s fault, it’s nobody’s fault

It’s tough to solve a problem when there are many, contributing variables. Such is the case with public education.

Image by Shutterstock

Image by Shutterstock

For decades and until about 25 years ago, Iowa students led the nation in student achievement. It was a source of state pride. Now just one generation later, student performance has fallen to an average or below average level.

Students First, an organization dedicated to reforming education in the country, gave the state of Iowa an “F” on its 2014 State Policy Report Card and ranked Iowa as 46th in performance. Major categories measured were abilities to elevate the teaching profession, empower parents, and spend wisely and govern well. The 2013 National Assessment of Educational Standards showed that only 36 percent of Iowa eighth graders were proficient in math and 37 percent proficient in English. And U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, stated at the 2011 Iowa Education Summit that, “…the ACT scores of college-bound students suggest that only three in ten high school graduates in Iowa are ready for post-secondary course work.”

Teachers, unions, administrators, school boards, legislators and parents can all rightfully shoulder some of the blame. And that’s the problem. When it’s everyone’s fault, it’s nobody’s fault. There’s no sense of ownership, by any one group, to the crisis in Iowa’s public education.

Maybe we could agree that it’s both everyone’s fault and nobody’s fault and then move on to find solutions that will help our state regain its standing in education greatness.

Teachers – Teaching is a difficult and highly-skilled profession, and still most of our educators manage to do an amazing job. But as any public school graduate knows, there are also ineffective teachers who are allowed to remain in the system for generations. Many administrators and school boards are terrified of firing these teachers because, with union opposition, it could lead to a long and costly, legal battle. According to the Center for American Progress, the U.S. Department of Education found that 61 percent of principals believed teacher associations and unions were a barrier to dismissing poor-performing teachers. Also, the Center found that some districts across the nation spend—on average—more than $200,000 to fire an incompetent, tenured teacher.

The best way to boost student achievement is to have a great teacher in every classroom. Teachers know this. Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth reported in “Schoolhouses, Courthouses and Statehouses,” that “…while the unions may oppose such programs, most of their own members clearly recognize the problem of unfit teachers propped up by the current pay and tenure system. In a recent survey by Public Agenda, 78 percent of teachers polled report at least a few teachers in their school who are simply going through the motions.” Teachers must become advocates for their students by insisting that unions not thwart the removal of ineffective teachers.

Unions – Do not do anything that opposes the removal of poor performers.

Administrators – If ineffective teachers can be dismissed, than administrators should be held accountable for student performance. But a school, just like any other work place, can become quite political. Administrators are personnel decision makers and if it became easier to fire teachers, that power could be abused by unjustly releasing an otherwise high-performing teacher over mere personality conflicts.

Tie the administrator’s job to student performance. An administrator will keep a great teacher in every classroom, even when there are political or personal issues. His or her job will depend upon it.

School Boards – You were voted into office by your community. Your first loyalty is to the families you serve—not the staff. Nobody cares more about the education of our youth than their parents. Be their voice.

Legislators – Our legislators made it painfully clear that the amount of money needed to adequately fund public schools is debatable. But the bare minimum of communicating that allocation to school districts in a timely manner is not happening. Districts are not able to plan. And if you fail to plan…

Parents – Every day, ask your children what they learned in school. If the answer is, “Nothing,” the problem of Iowa’s falling academic performance can be found in the home as well. It seems impossible for a child to attend any educational facility in Iowa for seven hours and not learn something. Parents must give their children the expectation that it is their job to show up at school, with an open attitude, and be ready to learn. Children have a way of rising to meet reasonable expectations.

Fixing what’s wrong with Iowa’s education system won’t be this simplistic, but getting all groups to bear responsibility and participate in more accountable ways would be a mammoth beginning.

Seeing the threat of a poorly educated populace as far back as 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education stated, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves.”

Collectively. We have allowed this to happen to ourselves. Teachers, unions, administrators, school boards, legislators and parents. But collectively, Iowa can regain its standing in educational excellence in the nation.

By owning it. Each and every one of us.

A June look at January resolutions

My parents raised me to believe that being 15 minutes early was being on time. I have not always mastered this ideal, but they would have been proud of me for showing up at the airport a half hour early. My husband was flying in from a business trip, and I arrived to meet him in plenty of time.

Photo by Rachael Halvorson

Photo by Rachael Halvorson

My Kindle was fully charged and an easy swipe from my purse, but after the 90-minute drive I was content to let my eyes drift and people watch. I grabbed a cup of airport coffee and positioned myself in one of the best seats available to watch the arrival of passengers.

I’m not the most approachable person. I do enjoy other people. I just don’t have that gift to draw in others. So I was surprised when an older lady plopped down in a seat right next to mine, while other seats were empty.

She opened a book and began reading. I glanced at her, mentioned that I enjoyed reading too, continued to stare down the passenger arrival hallway, and took another sip of my average coffee.

“Yes,” she warmly clucked. She had a real love for reading. She chattered on, revealing that she reads at least 100 books every year. Turning my gaze from the arrivals hallway, I shifted in my seat and studied her as though she had horns sprouting from her head. Who does that? Who reads 100 books every year?

She was a retired…librarian.

But still.

Got me to thinking. It was December, and the opportunity to make New Year’s Resolutions was right around the corner. I decided that if she could read 100 books a year, I surely could read 52. I’m not retired, but I’d only be at half her pace. Just one book a week.

Whenever the favorite pastime question has come up, I’ve always responded reading. And yet, I wasn’t. Not as much as I would like.

Life has been busy, earning a living and raising a family. It’s been a privilege and a joy to first be a parent to my own children and then to care for my elderly parents, but my caretaker role has subsided. My kids are grown, and my parents are gone.

There was no excuse to let another year quickly vanish, without thinking about what I really wanted to do with it. I wanted to read more, to read 52 books in one year.

It’s now June.

I’ve read nine.

I should be at 24. It’s been a lot tougher than I thought it would be.

On the other hand, I’m on track to read 18-20 books this year. I can’t remember the last time I read 20 books in one year. It would have to be the college years, but textbooks don’t really count. Being driven to read from fear of penalty is different from reading for enjoyment and pure love of learning.

And so, I have accomplished something. I’m way behind on my New Year’s Resolution goal, but I’ve achieved more had I not set any resolution at all.

I had a second New Year’s Resolution to start a blog. For me, writing ranks right up there with reading. Can’t get enough of the written word. I planned to blog weekly.

I’ve been posting just once a month.

I’m brimming with ideas, but can’t escape the fact that these ideas must be put on hold while I perform my day job. My home office and cozy sanctuary where I can read, think, learn, research and write remains empty, all too often.

On the other hand, I actually have a blog started. This isn’t my 24th post, but it is my sixth. That’s six more than I would have accomplished without committing to a New Year’s Resolution.

I did get something done.

The reading and blogging have been good for me. My days are better, happier with these goals of mine. I feel more like me.

And so my fellow New Year’s Resolution makers, we’re almost halfway through the year. I hope you’re on target with dreams that were crystal clear in January. But if you’re not, cut yourself some slack and think of all you’ve accomplished anyway.

Feels good, doesn’t it?

Minimum wage doesn’t provide for the bare minimum

There is disagreement on where minimum wage should be set, but when full-time, minimum wage workers in Iowa fall below the poverty threshold—it cannot stay at $7.25.

Image by Shutterstock.

Image by Shutterstock.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2014 poverty threshold is $16,317 for a two-person household. That’s $7.84 an hour. Also, the Iowa Policy Project estimates annual food, rent, utilities, clothing and household expenses for a two-person household to be $16,560 annually. That’s $7.96 an hour.

Full-time, minimum wage workers are failing to secure the basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter. In “Nickel and Dimed,” Barbara Ehrenreich cites one poll in which 94 percent of Americans believe that, “people who work full-time should be able to earn enough to keep their families out of poverty.”

Americans possess a sense of justice. We are also a generous people. There are dozens of government support programs for the working poor, supported by taxpayers. Effort, combined with generosity, can solve poverty.

One income should support a two-person household. There are some who are not capable of working—children, the elderly, and disabled individuals. Despite our fierce independence in this country, we are not so individualistic that it becomes normal to think in terms of only taking care of ourselves. The hopeful norm is the belief that one person working a full-time, minimum wage job can support one additional person in the household, not capable of working, with those wages.

Iowa legislators introduced a bill that would have raised minimum wage to $8.00 this year and $8.75 next year. The measure died. An hourly wage of $8.00 will simply meet the poverty threshold for a two-person household. Another 75 cents an hour will put an additional 30 bucks each week in the pocket of a full-time worker.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 29 states and D.C. have minimum wages above the federal requirement of $7.25. Of those already higher than the federal requirement, 15 have passed legislation to increase its state minimum wage again and will take effect within the next year or two. While it could be argued that some states are increasing minimum wages too much and too fast without full consideration of unintended consequences—particularly for small business owners—the Iowa bill was reasonable. Knowing that it takes at least $8.00 an hour to purchase the bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter, it’s reasonable to move to that amount as a state minimum. Our neighbors—Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota—all have minimum wages higher than Iowa. Increasing state minimum wage is trending upward.

The National Federation of Independent Business warns that small businesses are the ones who will suffer the most, and if they suffer—the jobs will go with them. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses make up 99 percent of U.S. firms and are responsible for 64 percent of new, private-sector jobs. These small businesses also have a 50 percent failure rate within the first five years, but some failures have nothing to do with labor costs.

History has proven that many small businesses can adjust to the challenge of modest increases in the minimum wage. The time has come to do it again. Human beings who are doing their part and working full-time should not be falling below the poverty threshold. It’s difficult to call that working arrangement a job.

Iowans can help by supporting small businesses in their communities. The consumer has power. And responsibility.

Some may be hard pressed to think of even one person they personally know who is making minimum wage or one business that pays minimum wage. Workers are in demand, and often companies have no choice but to pay higher wages. Free market advocates will say the problem has already been worked out.

If it’s a non-issue, there should be no opposition.

Our legislators failed, and the failure was partisan with Democrats supporting the increase and Republicans opposing it. Partisan battles will and should happen when extreme, liberal or conservative factions are at work. But it’s not extreme to increase the minimum wage to $8.00 an hour. It’s reasonable.

This problem isn’t going away. If more states make the choice to fix it themselves, perhaps the federal government will not feel the need to enforce a one-size-fits-all mandate. What works in the District of Columbia and the East Coast may not be what’s best for Iowa.

When the issue of minimum wage is brought up again, let’s hope our elected leaders—despite their party affiliation—will find a way to do what’s reasonable.

Because the current minimum wage doesn’t cover the bare minimum.

Grief

 

Image by Shutterstock.

Image by Shutterstock.

My mind has been trying to understand how my heart still hurts so badly when I think about my father, who passed away seven years ago. As time has moved on, the grief bursts have been less frequent. But they haven’t ended. As I found out on Easter Sunday.

I was trying to tell my daughter that I appreciated her technological wizardry for converting an old VHS tape to a DVD format. It was from the ancient era of 2001. A “Lefse Documentary,” starring my mother.

Mom was in her glory. She was in her large farmhouse kitchen and instructing plenty of eager learners in the art of making lefse, a very thin potato bread enjoyed by Norwegians and others. It was a moment called for documentary making, and I planted the camcorder solidly on my right shoulder.

Mom passed away last summer, at 79, from cancer. My siblings, their families and mine were gathering for Easter, and I thought it would be a treat to see the “Lefse Documentary.”

Because Mom had the starring role, I was prepared to see her. I remembered her enthusiasm bubbling over that day, the way she explained everything with a big smile, and then later in the day her ever-so-pleasant suggestion that perhaps it was time for me to put the camera down and get to work.

What I didn’t remember was that Dad made a cameo appearance in this 2001 flick. He came in from outside and hung up his hat and coat in the porch, like I had seen him do a thousand times. We were joking that since Dad was one of the few there who was 100 percent Norwegian, he had earned the right to give orders. He entered the kitchen and in his booming and faux stern voice played along by ordering, “Snap to!” Which was followed by a hearty chuckle. Classic Dad. With all the ladies swarming in the kitchen, it didn’t take him long to retire to his recliner in the living room.

Dad would pass away seven years later from kidney failure and congestive heart failure.

As I was thanking my daughter for getting the format converted so it could be watched later in the day with my siblings, I confided that I didn’t remember Dad being in it.

And then the unexpected grief burst. Wailing, I told her that I missed my Dad. He wasn’t just my Dad, he was my mentor. “I’ve tried to be a good person like he was,” and “He was always so happy.” For the most part, I’m a person who uses measured words. No-one was more surprised than me by the words that flowed from my mouth. Words that weren’t planned, that came from somewhere other than my brain.

There’s an unraveling that happens when you lose someone you love. Something constant and reassuring in your life gives way to a shakiness and something lost.

When I was a little girl, I would make my way down the steep staircase on school mornings and peer around the corner to the kitchen. The ceiling-length fluorescent light blinded me, but I would look for Dad who would be in his chair at the end of the table. I crawled up into his lap. Content. We didn’t talk. He just held me and let me wake up. It didn’t take long before my eyes adjusted, and I was ready to hop down and eat breakfast.

The one who gives you the foundation of feeling safe is the one you owe much. And the one you miss much.

Cheryl Strayed, in “Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail,” speaks of grief as a wilderness through which she had to find her own way. She hikes the mountainous trail for about 100 days. Mostly alone. Trying to work out her mother’s death from cancer at a young age. At the beginning of her journey in Southern California, she tricks her fears into subsiding by repeating to herself, “Who is tougher than me?” By the time her summer-long hike gets her to Oregon, mantras aren’t needed. She senses that, “You’re safe in this world.”

The world is uncontrollable and wild. The only thing we can navigate, with the grace of God, is our own life. And it’s enough. The good decisions. The bad decisions. Lessons learned from both. Accepting it all, feeling stronger and safer, and having the courage to live our truth.

Dad was 81 when he passed away. He lived a good and long life. As did Mom. That piece of it does help. In some ways I feel guilty for this big grief of mine for parents who reached old age, while others are taken when they’re far too young. But grief doesn’t care about age.

There’s a passage from Corinthians that’s many times used for weddings, but I reflect on it during times of loss. “It bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

I’ve come to understand that as long as love doesn’t end, grief won’t completely end either. And that kind of love, in this world we’re navigating, is a good thing.

Gridlock begins in the voting booth

Voters lament political gridlock–while they’re encircling the oval for straight party voting.

Straight party voting is, in itself, a form of gridlock. No consideration is given to each candidate on the ballot. Minds are made up with one darkened oval for the party. And when there’s gridlock in the voting booth, it seems disingenuous to bemoan a lack of compromise at the legislature.

It’s a common practice in Iowa. Iowawatch.org, using statistics from the Secretary of State’s office, reported that about a third of Iowans voted a straight party ticket in the 2014 election. But it’s not a common practice nationwide. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Iowa is in the company of just ten other states still allowing straight party voting: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. Voting for the party, without selecting each candidate, is trending downward.

Image by Shutterstock.

Image by Shutterstock

Opponents of selecting the oval for straight party voting say it reinforces unhealthy partisanship and also causes non-partisan offices on the ballot to be left blank. Supporters of the practice say that it’s easy to understand and removing the efficient option could mean longer wait times in the voting lines. And, there’s no clear party winner with the practice. Sometimes Republicans benefit and sometimes Democrats. Regardless, even with removing the straight party oval option, voters can still vote 100 percent of the time for their chosen party’s candidates. It just requires selecting each candidate individually.

Since politicians many times fail to find paths of compromise that result in accomplishments for our state and nation, maybe it’s all wrong to think of them as our leaders. Maybe the real leaders are the average voters. By discontinuing the practice of straight party voting and showing a willingness to consider the merits of all candidates on the ballot, voters will be leading by example.

There is, it seems, something unreasonable about straight party voting. Do we really believe that either all Democrats or all Republicans are the “bad guys?” Sounds discriminatory. We don’t discriminate in other areas, and we shouldn’t in our political lives either.

True, we have different viewpoints, opinions and beliefs. And this belief system typically aligns well with one party or the other. It’s pretty simple to align with a party.

Aligning with a candidate is tougher. It takes times to become informed about how one candidate differs from another. How has an incumbent performed in office? What has he or she accomplished? What qualifications or campaign promises does a challenger offer?

Today’s media does make it easier to be informed. Most newspapers have online editions. Social media, although not always the most reliable source, helps by getting people talking about the issues and asking questions. News radio shows have proliferated. Cable television has many channels devoted to non-stop news and commentary, and the steadfast, major networks continue to provide local and world news nightly.

There are typically a dozen or more choices to be made on each ballot. Democrats or Republicans accustomed to straight party voting might consider one candidate from the opposite party who could earn their vote. When in doubt–either from lack of information about the candidate or because both candidates are equally appealing (or equally displeasing)–vote party preference. But if the voter cannot find one, acceptable candidate running opposite his or her party choice, a clearer understanding will develop of why gridlock exists. If voters see only red or blue, why would we expect elected officials to behave differently?

There’s an attitude of gridlock that begins in the voting booth. Adjusting voting behavior, by eliminating the straight party oval option and encouraging voters to consider each candidate, won’t  change the world. But a change in attitude brings a change in expectation, an expectation that politicians who were sent to problem solve–do so. No matter which party is in the majority at the time.

There is hope. In the book, “Political Behavior of the American Electorate,” authors William Flanigan and Nancy Zingale closed their research by stating, “Despite the political elite and political activists, a sizable portion of the electorate is moderate or unconcerned about ideology and lacking in firm partisan attachments.”

Democrats and Republicans voting for moderate and reasonable candidates just might elect a group of workers who can put our state and nation first and partisan politics second. If that doesn’t work, voters might consider joining the growing Independent party. If its numbers keep climbing, it’ll be fielding more successful candidates on the ballot.

Perhaps, then, we will see the death of gridlock.