Iowa has two Republicans in the US House. Steve King (R-IA5) gets all the headlines for his outrageous antics, but Tom Latham (R-IA4) is an equally reliable conservative vote for cold-hearted Republican policies. But unlike the deep red 5th district, the 4th is one of only five congressional districts in the entire US with an even PVI and a GOP representative. It’s time to change that.
I’m Bill Maske, and I’m running for Congress because people in this district need help, not "no" votes from a member of the Party of No.
In the northeast and central Iowa counties, unemployment is the highest in the state, yet Tom Latham voted four times this year against extending unemployment insurance. He seems to know that these are awkward votes to explain back home, so he sent out a press release justifying his unconscionable votes with the deficit:
"The economic pain experienced by the Americans who are relying on these benefits is real, but we can’t afford to put our country’s fiscal house in further disarray."
In other words, if you’re unemployed, you’re on your own. Economic pain being experienced here in Iowa is very real. He does have that right. But he thinks it is more important to reduce the deficit than to help people stay in their homes and keep the lights on.
"I voted against the bill not because I’m unsympathetic to Americans who are struggling with long-term unemployment but because we must get a handle on spending and debt in order to create jobs and jumpstart a long-term recovery.... Instead of adding to the deficit, we should reach back and find ineffective and wasteful spending under the failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill to pay for extended unemployment benefits."
I know hypocrisy when I see it, and this is hypocrisy. Tom Latham has routinely voted in favor of farm subsidies, which are a safety net for family farmers, just as unemployment benefits are a safety net for workers victimized by the recession. Both programs cost money paid by America’s taxpayers. So why vote for farm subsidies and turn down benefits that help people survive months of joblessness? There are a lot of farms in Iowa, but there are also a lot of people out of work.
Here’s one possible explanation: Tom Latham’s family farm has received $472,000 in subsidies since 2003. Last year the total was $40,000, which is more than many families make in this district even when they’re lucky enough to be working. So the unemployed get "sympathy" while farmers get cash, because self-interest is more important than the desperate needs of unemployed Iowans.
If the Congressman truly wants to "reach back" and find wasteful spending, he could look no further than the Bush-era tax cuts and wars that he voted for. On the other hand, the stimulus funds that he wants to cut have meant $2.7 billion for Iowa, to save jobs, and to fund education, health care, housing, public safety, and other areas. That same amount would not have paid for four days of the Iraq War. It is less than one percent of what extending the Bush tax cuts would cost over the next ten years. Whether to extend unemployment benefits in this recession, or use stimulus funds to create jobs, are questions of priorities. The Congressman’s priorities are clear.
People are my priority. I proved that by spending thirty-four years in education. I will not go to Washington so I can vote to reduce the deficit on the backs of the unemployed. I believe in economic and social justice. I understand that self-interest and special interests have no place in public policy. I want to lift people up, not step on them when they are down.
I ask for your help. Help me get the word out about Steve King’s equally heartless House colleague, and please contribute if you are able. This district is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. If people really understand whose side Latham is on, he will lose.
I will stay to answer your questions in the comments, and thank you for reading.
Bill Maske