To All:

I thought you might also like to read this article, from the Des Moines
Register of 9/8/2002. Yepsen outdoes himself on this one!

Lyle Krewson
Iowa EVEC Coordinator
*****************************

Yepsen: Love him or hate him, Harkin has seniority

By DAVID YEPSEN
Register Political Columnist
09/08/2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Senator Tom Harkin's seniority is an important asset for Iowa in
Washington. Seniority means the members of Congress who have been around the
longest have the most power. They run the most important committees and they
set the policies and agenda.


Harkin's Republican challenger, Congressman Greg Ganske, has a tough sell to
make when he asks Iowans to get rid of their investment in Harkin.

While seniority is a boring issue, it's an important one for Iowa. We're a
rural state that's been losing population - and congressional representation
- for decades. What we lose in numbers we can only hope to make up with
seniority and clout.

Harkin, who was first elected to the Senate in 1984, has important positions
as chairman of the Agriculture Committee and as the leading Democrat on an
important subcommittee of the appropriations committee. As chairman of the
ag committee, Harkin wrote a farm bill that sends more money to Iowa than
any other state. Harkin is also the ranking Democrat on the Labor, Health
and Human Services and Education subcommittee of the Senate's Appropriations
Committee. After defense, it's in charge of more spending than any other
subcommittee. It is from that position that Harkin can obtain grants for
health care, poor people and school programs. For example, there are 195
Iowa school districts that have received $37 million in federal grants over
the last four years to help build new schools and fix up buildings.

Keep Harkin around and even more money can come to Iowa. Get rid of Harkin
and those dollars will just go to other states, the ones with the new
committee chairs or ranking members. (Just as happened when Ganske beat
veteran Neal Smith in 1994.)

In a perfect world, the federal government would spend a lot less.
Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world, and the federal government spends
a lot of money, no matter which party's in control. That means an issue in
any congressional election is which candidate is best positioned to bring
some of it home. It's usually the incumbent.

Harkin's seniority goes well with that of Iowa's Republican senator, Charles
Grassley. He was first elected in 1980 and is the top Republican on the
powerful Finance Committee, which writes tax, pension and trade policies.
The question is, which team would be in a better position to shape federal
policies to help make Iowa grow and prosper: the Grassley-Harkin team or a
Grassley-Ganske combo?

There are few states with a duo like Grassley and Harkin in Washington. When
the Democrats run the Senate, Harkin chairs important committees. When the
Republicans control the place, Grassley chairs one. The minority member of
this two-some retains a highly influential position as ranking member on his
committee.

It all means Iowa has a politically diversified portfolio in the Senate.
We're hedged. All our eggs aren't in one basket, our chips aren't on one
number. No matter what your party, no matter what your ideology, you've got
a powerful friend in Washington. Liberals don't like the conservative
Grassley and liberal Harkin drives conservatives crazy, but for a state that
is as politically balanced as Iowa, their package is a pretty good overall
reflection of Iowa.

It's also a pragmatic one that can get things done, no matter which party
controls Congress or the White House.

Ganske argues that by getting rid of Harkin, Iowa will send a Republican to
Washington and help Grassley regain the chairmanship of the Finance
Committee. True enough, but Ganske himself would still be a runt of the
litter. Ganske also said that on some issues - like poor Medicare
reimbursements - Harkin's seniority hasn't done much for Iowa. Good
criticism. But Ganske has been in the U.S. House for eight years and he's
not exactly solved this problem either. The fact is, all Iowans in Congress
haven't done enough. The question now isn't one of assigning blame but of
who can get a solution through Congress, a senior member or a freshman?

Ganske has been rated one of the most effective members of the U.S. House by
Congressional Quarterly. He's won good marks as a member of the important
Commerce Committee. Which is why it's too bad he's giving up his seniority
in favor of this Senate run.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]