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]