Sandra Reicks

Clinton’s history of corruption, without consequences, should be a deal breaker

trump-2

Historically, voters send an individual to the White House who is in good standing on Election Day. Most serve their country well.

Sometimes, though, the president surprises and disappoints citizens by committing a potentially impeachable act after being sworn in. Voters don’t have a crystal ball and can’t predict what any elected official will do, once in office.

This election, though, voters know before marking their ballot that Hillary Clinton has committed wrongdoings so serious that they would likely be impeachable offenses had she committed them as president.

The Watergate Articles of Impeachment show uncanny similarities between the actions of President Nixon and those of presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.

The articles charged Nixon for, “Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States,” and also, “Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,…and Congressional Committees.”

Clinton stated that she, “never received nor sent any material that was classified” on her private email server while Secretary of State, a claim the FBI found to be untrue. Also, Clinton’s emails were deleted after she received a congressional subpoena. And Clinton’s phones were destroyed with hammers, according to an FBI report.

There is the unseemly defense that she may have been unaware of what was happening or couldn’t remember what happened in the State department, for which she had final authority, as she repeatedly testified. But that could make her the most unknowing and forgetful person to seek the highest office in the land. If not brazenly corrupt, then completely incompetent.

Remarkably, the FBI has characterized this behavior as carelessness. For the average citizen, it would likely be considered felonious.

For Nixon, it caused him to resign from the presidency. But for Clinton, she’s still on path to ascend to the Oval Office.

It seems that Hillary Clinton is above the law, that the rules don’t apply to her, and that she receives special treatment instead of consequences.

Donald Trump is a flawed candidate, as well, with a cringe-worthy communication style. But although he’s not a great talker, he is a hard worker.

He sees the work that needs to be done in this country including appointing Supreme Court justices who will defend and uphold the Constitution, rebuilding our nation through a strong military and strong trade agreements that will benefit American workers, and repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations that are strangling small businesses and the jobs they create.

Most importantly, though, he’s called attention to the corruption in politics and the bias in the mainstream media for liberal candidates. Our country won’t have a chance to accomplish anything until these two wrongs get righted.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that 430 individuals working in the journalism field made political donations and that nearly all of the money, or about 96 percent, benefited Clinton. The donation totals were relatively small: $382,000 for Clinton and $14,000 for Trump. But the money isn’t the biggest problem. It’s the mindset of the journalists, who control the airways and the newspapers—who hold the extremely powerful role of telling voters what to think about. And those journalists have invested financially, and emotionally, in a Clinton win.

The mainstream media is no longer the trusted, watchdog press that it used to be.

If the numbers aren’t damaging enough, recall the imagery of the hug that moderator Rachel Maddow, of MSNBC, gave Hillary Clinton after a Democratic debate.

The press is hugging Clinton. Figuratively, literally and financially.

It seems that Hillary Clinton, if not outright corrupt, is a benefactor of corruption. Positive changes won’t happen with her.

My father had a way of sharing his wisdom and then ending with, “Don’t ever forget that.” One of those teaching moments came when I was quite young, and it stuck with me. He told me that I wasn’t better than anyone else. But at the same time, nobody—(including a presidential candidate)—was better than I was.

And he’s still right.

Hillary Clinton is not above the law.

I’m not sure if Donald Trump can make America great again, but he correctly understands the best way to start—by draining the swamp of corruption.

53 is fine by me

cruise-photo

It’s a tale of two cruises.

The first one happened for our 10th wedding anniversary, and we took the entire family. It was March. We left Miami and stopped in Key West and Cozumel, Mexico. Our kids still say it was one of the best vacations we ever took. The ship had a feel of joyful chaos because there were lots of college spring breakers on board. It was loud and crowded everywhere, including the ports of call. If you weren’t on deck early in the morning, you didn’t have a prayer of finding an open chair in which to enjoy the warm weather. Although there was a lot of energy on board, there was far too little serenity for my liking. I was 38. Cruising wasn’t something I wanted to do again anytime soon.

The second one happened for our 25th wedding anniversary. This time, it was just my husband and I who cruised. It was mid-September. We left Boston and stopped in Bar Harbor, Maine, St. John, New Brunswick and Halifax, Nova Scotia. Most of the ship’s passengers were our age or older. The only crowded place on board was the casino. Otherwise it was pure relaxation with lots of seating available anywhere we wanted to go, including the guided tour buses to which we happily turned over our locomotion. I was 53. Life slowed down on that cruise, and I loved it.

As I reflect on these two cruises, it’s hard for me to believe that a cruise with seniors who like to take naps feels better than a cruise with spring breakers who never sleep. A part of me can’t admit to that. Like it’s a failure to not want to keep up with the high-energy world of the younger generation.

But then honesty sets in. I like to take naps too.

Aging isn’t something I thought about or prepared for at all. Many years of living just subtly shifts you to your next stage of life, without your awareness. Aging finds you and comes for you ever so slowly, that by the time it does—you’re surprisingly ok with it.

It’s not that I’m ready for retirement. I’m a doer and take a lot of joy out of being productive. In fact, a perfect life would be to remain productive in some way until the Lord calls me home.

And I still have a “yes, I can!” attitude. Of the 2,400 passengers aboard the cruise ship, my husband and I were likely the only two who purchased our tickets two days before the ship sailed and drove 22 hours straight through to catch the boat before it left. We’re still road warriors and not fearful of being spontaneous.

But the reality is that 53 isn’t 23. I’m fully aware that the glorious speed of youth is being replaced with the reflection and contentment that comes with aging.

And the really wonderful thing is, that I’m liking it.

Beware of comprehensive legislation

comprehensive

Image by Shutterstock.

“Comprehensive” is the dirtiest word in legislative language.

We’ve had comprehensive health care reform, which is a success mainly by the measurement of increased government spending. There’s talk of comprehensive immigration reform, which would likely be an overkill solution. And some counties in the state are using the comprehensive approach to increase the minimum wage through automatic, annual increases that are usually too steep and objectionable to pass.

Comprehensive is code for, “Let’s really screw this up.” Instead of focusing on a single, fixable issue, comprehensive legislation keeps adding to the bill until it either becomes unpassable or it passes, but creates additional problems.

The biggest, single issue that needed fixing in the health insurance world was to eliminate underwriting for pre-existing conditions. According to The Statistics Portal, in 2014 about 84 percent of our population received health insurance through either Medicare—insurance for the elderly, Medicaid—insurance for the poor, or through group workplace plans. About six percent purchased health care off the individual market. The remaining 10 percent were uninsured. Many of the uninsured likely had a pre-existing health condition and were denied insurance. This is the one group we needed to help. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, provided that help, but the 2,700 page bill created more problems by doing so.

Before Obamacare, those who purchased health care off the individual market were self-sufficient and paid for their own health insurance—without the help of taxpayer subsidies. Because premiums are higher in Obamacare, insurance has become unaffordable to this group that had previously paid their own way. More than 85 percent of Obamacare enrollees receive some type of financial assistance. That means taxpayers are helping to support not only those who were being underwritten, but now also many who were previously self-sufficient.

Comprehensive immigration reform is a talking point on the campaign trail. The one problem that needs fixing with immigration in the country is that our laws are not being enforced. There’s been a reason for that. Employers are benefiting from cheap labor provided by undocumented workers, and consumers are benefiting by purchasing the cheap goods they’re producing. In some ways, we’ve all been part of the problem.

But we don’t need comprehensive immigration reform. Simply enforce the laws we already have, particularly for those who illegally migrate to our country and then commit felonies. After we’ve neglected our laws for decades, it may be too late—logistically and morally—to deport millions of productive human beings who have assimilated to our nation’s core values. But strong leadership can make it clear to the world that arriving in the United States will now be through legal methods only. Others will be deported.

Then there’s the minimum wage conundrum. Because our state legislators failed to solve the problem, some counties in Iowa have grappled with the issue. Comprehensive ideas about multiple, steep increases through successive years are making it hard for local leaders to find consensus. For some, the only acceptable solution is a guaranteed path to $15.00 per hour. Meanwhile, there are workers languishing at $7.25 an hour who could really benefit from even a modest increase right now.

Don’t elected officials work every year? Can’t a reasonable increase to $9.00 per hour be made now and then discuss a future increase in—the future? Work now and work later. That’s what most people do. Elected officials can do the same.

Politicians like to use the comprehensive sound bite, suggesting that it’s the only way to solve a problem. But the effect is the opposite. Either nothing gets done, or there’s a solution overkill that causes more problems than it solves.

We can accomplish more, without going comprehensive.

Drug testing welfare recipients isn’t the best idea

drug test

Image by Shutterstock.

Drug testing welfare recipients is an idea that doesn’t go away. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 states have passed this type of legislation and another 17—including Iowa—have proposed it.

It has plenty of public support. Based upon both Rasmussen and Huffington Post polls, more than half of Americans want to see welfare recipients drug tested.

And yet, the program hasn’t proven to be a great success.

Many states that are experimenting with this policy are prudently choosing not to test every welfare recipient because of possible legal challenges of invasion of privacy. That means only those who are legitimately suspected of using drugs can be tested. With no better method to solidify suspicion, most of these state agencies are simply asking welfare recipients to complete questionnaires. It explains why some of these states have drug tested only a small percentage during the rollout of their program. And from that small number, very few are testing positive.

Besides having a hard time legally testing welfare recipients, there are costs to consider. Administering the program doesn’t happen for free. The financial burden of the program can outweigh any savings. Doing no drug testing could cost taxpayers less.

But just because drug testing welfare recipients isn’t the best idea, it doesn’t mean that lawmakers should ignore what’s at the heart of the matter.

Working people perceive that some individuals are gaming the welfare system, and lots are angry about it.

You don’t have to watch cable news to know that the country has become increasingly divided. One growing division seems to be between the working, tax-paying class and able-bodied individuals who don’t work and receive taxpayer assistance.

In reality, many who are receiving food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid health insurance are working. They just don’t earn enough to support their families. The Family Investment Program (FIP) provides cash payments to families, but it has a five-year, lifetime limitation. Many receiving FIP benefits are required to work at least part-time hours or enroll in some type of program to further their education. According to the Department of Human Services, a single parent with two children receives just $231 per month in cash assistance if the parent is working 20 hours a week at the minimum wage rate of $7.25.

I believe that what working people want more than mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is seeing able-bodied individuals make the effort to support themselves. The public assistance program is designed to do that.

But there are two things that could improve the system.

Increase the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour. A modest increase in the minimum wage could do so much good for families and could be enough to get some off of welfare programs, decreasing the number that taxpayers support. And history has shown that even small businesses can adjust to minimum wage increases when they’re reasonable.

Secondly, enforce the rules we have. Last fiscal year, the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals recovered $17 million in fraud as a result of welfare eligibility investigations. That’s a big number, but likely doesn’t represent the total dollar amount of deceit that may be out there.

And although FIP benefits can be extended to families beyond five years through a hardship exemption, the exception should be rare and compelling. Those specific dollars should be reported separately so taxpayers can know if the five-year lifetime maximum benefit becomes simply a lifetime benefit.

Give people a chance to move off of welfare by increasing the minimum wage, and do everything possible to maintain integrity in the public assistance program we have.

Maybe then, we’d have fewer taxpayers wanting drug testing of welfare recipients—which is largely a failed policy.

Path to voting for felons is reasonable

The debate over disenfranchised felons misses the mark. There’s a lot of indignation about lost voting rights, but it’s really a story about the lack of transparency and lack of desire.

felon voting

Image by Shutterstock.

Democrats and Republicans have made the issue a political football. Most Democrats assert that voting is a right—not a privilege—that should be restored immediately after being released from prison. Its belief system is helped out by the fact that many felons are low-income individuals who tend to vote Democrat. Many Republicans view voting as a privilege belonging to law-abiding citizens. The notion is that by choosing to commit a felony, an individual makes a simultaneous choice to lose voting rights. Those rights can be restored after release from prison by completing an application process, but some believe these potential Democrat voters may not go through that effort.

Both political parties want control of the vote, but what does the average, newly-released felon want?

There are dozens of agencies, charitable organizations and ministries designed to help a felon reenter society. Some help with basic needs of food, clothing and housing. Others help with employment opportunities and everything that goes along with getting that first job, like obtaining a new driver’s license.

What’s been getting missed, is the conversation about how to restore voting rights. As soon as the prison doors swing open, the Iowa Department of Corrections should be required to notify all released felons of the process required to restore voting rights and offer assistance if needed.

The tragedy isn’t that voting rights were taken away because of the crime committed. It’s that the process to restore those rights isn’t transparent.

It’s the spark that eventually led to the current Griffin v. Pate firestorm. Kelli Jo Griffin, a convicted felon, didn’t know about the, “Application for Restoration of Citizenship Rights.” She thought her voting rights would be automatically restored after her debt to society was paid. Better communication might have helped to avoid the lawsuit that is being argued before the Iowa Supreme Court.

It shouldn’t be a secret on how to be a voter in Iowa. Understanding how to restore voting rights should be as common as knowing how to get your driver’s license back after it has expired. Most people know that once a license is expired, an individual must spend a fair amount of time and effort to restore driving privileges. One must pass a written and driving test, and provide supporting documentation of identification. People know the rules. And if it does expire—for anyone, felon or non-felon—individuals will exert the effort needed. Because driving is important to them.

The U.S. Department of Transportation states that about 87 percent of the driving-age population has a license. Compare that percentage with the 42 percent of individuals who, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, exercised their right to vote in the 2014 elections.

Citizens in this country care about voting about half as much as they care about driving.

Transparency is the first tool to combat the disenfranchising of felons. Information on how to restore voting rights should be made available at the time of release and assistance provided if needed.

Then comes the tougher part—desire. In the state of Iowa, it takes desire on the part of the felon to become a voting citizen again by making the effort to pay restitution, complete the application process, and provide supporting documentation. The newly-streamlined application has 13 questions. They’re basic, fact-based questions like name, address and date of birth, as well as date of crime, conviction and release.

I believe in second chances. Kelli Jo Griffin does too. She’s part of the 42 percent who want to vote.

Armed with knowledge and effort, her goal could have been met a long time ago.

The not-so-nice part about free college tuition

There’s no doubt about it. Many who attended a public university following the 2008 recession shouldered a great, financial burden for their education. When state budgets shriveled up with the economic downturn, public universities took a hit in funding. That translated into higher tuition nationwide and a trillion-dollar student loan debt.

college grad

Image by Shutterstock

Iowa was not immune to this problem. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the state of Iowa (adjusting for inflation) decreased funding for higher education by 22 percent during this time. Despite that decrease, it had the fifth smallest tuition increase of 50 states. That means Iowa universities did a better job than most, in delivering a cost-effective education during the recession. And while the state of Iowa is showing signs of resuming more adequate funding of our public universities, it is still struggling—like other states across the nation—with budget constraints.

These tumultuous years have led Democratic presidential contenders, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, to offer a correction by making promises of free college tuition for all.

Sanders wants, “the best educated workforce in the world,” with college that is tuition-free. He plans to accomplish this by having Wall Street speculators pay for it. Clinton wants to see, “…incomes rise and ensure Americans get ahead and stay ahead,” with college that is tuition-free, although her plan asks students to work 10 hours per week. It would be paid for by requiring states to meet higher education funding requirements and by reducing or eliminating certain tax deductions of high-income earners. Both candidates believe a college education is an entitlement—whether or not students or their parents are financially independent or financially struggling.

This all sounds very nice, but there are three big problems with these niceties.

Making our colleges tuition-free won’t give us what Bernie Sanders wants—the best educated workforce in the world.

Based on feedback from employers, our colleges are not adequately preparing graduates. According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities, “The majority of employers feel that colleges and universities must make improvements to ensure graduates’ workplace success. Fully 58% think improvements are needed to ensure graduates gain the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in entry-level positions at their company… and an even larger portion (64%) think improvements are needed to ensure that graduates have the skills and knowledge needed to advance within their company.”

Promises to make college tuition-free might give us the most degreed workforce in the world, but there’s no correlating evidence that it would provide the best educated workforce.

Secondly, making our colleges tuition-free won’t give us what Hillary Clinton wants—rising incomes. There are insufficient, high-paying jobs for recent college graduates. The Pew Research Center reported from a 2012 study that about 28 percent of recent graduates were underemployed—either working part-time or working in a low-paying, full-time job.

Getting through college, without any debt, may be helped by providing free tuition. But unless we are able to produce high-paying jobs, we may just have more graduates who are dissatisfied and underemployed.

The third problem is the message.

We’re a generous people in this country. For those who show a financial need, taxpayers have historically helped to fund tuitions through Pell Grants. What grants don’t cover, student loans, part-time jobs, and scholarships can fulfill.

But to tell our high school graduates that they are all entitled to a tuition-free college education could be harmful. Your very first lesson as an adult shouldn’t be that the world owes you something.

There’s a more reasonable approach to solving the trillion-dollar student loan debt. Allow graduates to refinance loans at available, lower interest rates as recommended by both Sanders and Clinton. Also, graduates can now enter repayment agreements that don’t exceed 10 percent of their income—no matter how high the student loan debt. And, we can continue Pell Grants.

It’s possible to provide needs-based solutions without going overboard by starting another entitlement program with lots of potential, negative consequences:

  • Free tuition at public colleges could make it tougher for private colleges to compete.
  • Charitable giving by generous donors could diminish because if college is free, what would be the point of offering scholarships?
  • The grading system could be dangerously dumbed down to make sure students meet minimal, government-mandated GPAs, in order to keep free money flowing to colleges.
  • It could create another bloated government agency, in which the cost to administer the program diminishes any positive effects.

The recession has been a rough ride for many individuals, not just college students. It’s tempting to latch on to campaign promises of free stuff, but it doesn’t solve the root of the problem.

Efforts to improve the education process and improve the economy in order to produce high-paying jobs—that graduates are qualified to fill—would pay bigger dividends.

It’s the better message for students.

Clearing the clutter and cobwebs

tidying two

Image by Shutterstock

Middle class, middle-agers have a lot of stuff.

We’ve spent a lifetime earning, buying, and exponentially adding things to our homes.

It’s understandable. In the beginning of our adult lives, we had nothing. But as the years and then decades have gone by, each economic victory meant more purchases and a greater accumulation of possessions.

I’m tired of all this stuff.

When precious time is spent looking for an item—searching through this stack or that pile—my stress level climbs and I begin shouting, “We have so much stuff that we don’t even know what we have. I’m going to start throwing out all this stuff so we can find what we need.”

That was always an empty threat.

The book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up,” by Marie Kondo, though, has me looking at the concept of getting rid of stuff with new intrigue.

I thought the book would offer some concrete and easy to follow rules for tidying up a home. Keep no more than 100 books. Own no more than 10 pairs of shoes. One filing cabinet is all that’s needed for storing documents and important papers. Reasonable limits that I could adhere to and finally put my home in complete and satisfying order.

But those kinds of rules can’t ever work, because we’re all unique individuals. For one person, limiting the library to 100 books would be a tremendous sacrifice while another would find 100 books too cluttering. Generic rules would initially be simple, but not sustainable. It’d be a constant battle of trying to remain true to the person you are, while also complying with the rule.

Instead, the criteria that Kondo uses to determine whether or not to keep or throw an item is to ask if the item sparks joy for you. If it does, keep it. If it does not, dispose of it.

What?

Joy is a pretty strong word, and way too solid to apply to inanimate objects. But the intent is clear. Ask yourself, “Do you really want this item, or have you been holding on to it for a reason other than really wanting it?” If you don’t really want it, you can now give yourself permission to dispose of it.

This approach isn’t very concise, and therefore seems like a haphazard way to organize your home. But if you keep an open mind and make an effort to follow the joy factor, you begin to see the wisdom of it.

I haven’t jumped in with the zealous and intense approach recommended by the book, but I did experiment with the cookware section. Old habits die hard, and I was stalled by the same mental arguments I had in the past when trying to organize my too-much-stuff. “This is still in good condition.” (Even if I haven’t used it in years.) “This is a high quality piece.” (It’s too wasteful to get rid of something this expensive.) Or, “This lid fits this pan perfectly.” (Even though I have four other lids that also fit that pan perfectly thanks to wearing out pans faster than lids.)

But this time, I did manage to dispose of all those pieces that weren’t sparking joy—or at least weren’t sparking contentment. Out they went.

My reward is a cupboard left only with items I really want and use.

There’s something unexpectedly fulfilling about all this simple decision-making, too. With each choice, you’re declaring what you like and what you don’t like. It reinforces who you are as a unique individual. And that feels good. I don’t need multiple types and styles of cookie sheets because, although I love to cook, I don’t like to bake. I’m a cook, not a baker.

And when you put this much effort into organizing something—that is still just cookware—you make sure there’s a specific place for everything that you do keep. If there’s no room for anything else, you won’t make the same mistake of buying additional items when there’s no place to put them. Putting cookware through the joy test is something you only want to do once in your life. And now, the stress of looking for a pan or lid or casserole dish has been eliminated. I know where it is before I open the drawer.

Removing clutter from our home can be like removing cobwebs from our brain.

It’s hard to completely rest when there’s clutter around because it shouts that there’s unfinished work that needs attention. Our minds are continuously and oh-so-subtly preoccupied with this disorder in our lives.

Imagine a home where everything was in its proper place and those things were only items that you really wanted. Our minds would be fully free to think about more important things in life.

Kondo says, “…pour your time and passion into what brings you the most joy, your mission in life…putting your house in order will help you find the mission that speaks to your heart. Life truly begins after you have put your house in order.”

Now, to get the rest of my home like my cookware.

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.

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.