"Surviving Without Newspapers"

It is My Rural America's position that newspapers are an important key to keeping our democracy alive and well. After all, if citizens cannot rely upon their newspapers' to maintain independent investigatory reporting, how will they know what their elected officials really do ... vote for ... vote against? And where will be the "check & balance" that citizens need to understand the bills and the debate about the choices in health care? the need for jobs? the importance of fair trade? the desperate need for peace worldwide.

Last autumn, My Rural America targeted three issues:

1. The New GI Bill
2. SCHIP ... State Children's Health Insurance Program
3. HR 4529, Vote # 259 on June 17, 2004 -- a lesser known bill that resulted in good US jobs being shipped out of the country, e.g., Virginia alone lost 75,000 jobs to overseas.

It was an effective campaign, but for our purposes today, what was particularly shocking ... and desperately sad ... was the people who wrote in saying to the effect "my congressman wouldn't vote against GI benefits, children's health or to approve sending jobs overseas." These people were wrong -- many were educated, and clearly not stupid nor lazy or disinterested. Rather, they lacked information -- information which never appears in their home town papers, and often is either not covered by blogs or not fact-checked.

Over the next weeks, readers may expect a series of stories about how important newspapers are. For today, we share "Surviving Without Newspapers" by A.J. Liebling and published in the New York Times on 6/6/2009.

"Sound Ag Policy Vital in This Presidential Race"

Iowa Corn Growers Association President Gary Edwards spoke very clearly today, "It is not our job to tell you who you should vote for or what party you should follow, but it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of Iowa corn growers, Iowa consumers and their future."

At My Rural America, we believe the same -- very specifically believing that it isn't our job to tell you who you should vote for. However, regarding our nation's policies, we have a little broader outlook, i.e., we believe it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of rural Americans and their future. We don't endorse candidates here but we do present the voting records while we open the door to ways you can easily access more detailed information. We define "interests of rural Americans" as policies that affect the kitchen tables of rural families. These include :

• Jobs and the economy, including Farm Bill, where we have supported the Farm Bill and watched carefully over what Congress is doing to get our economy back on track and to keep our nation's credit from drying up;
• Health care and education, recognizing that both are necessary if our families are to be strong, resulting in our ongoing effort to support SCHIP, eliminate the doughnut hole in the prescription drug program and offer affordable health care for all;
• National security, where we have consistently shared facts on how rural America is carrying an undue burden as our nation fights the Afghan War and continues the Iraq occupation.

That's why Friday we posted a detailed story about the New GI Bill and who really made it happen, including emphasis on who opposed it, in many cases who actually worked deliberately to stop the Bill. We chose this as our first priority issue to emphasize in the coming weeks because rural citizens make up about 20 percent of U.S. population while our sons and daughters compose about 60 percent of the soldiers serving in these military actions. This undue burden that rural families have carried, and continue to carry, for more than five years is a serious one for our soldiers and our country. We believe that at a minimum we owe a strong package of benefits for those who return home. By scrolling down just past this blog, you can read more detail about The New GI Bill, and also learn more about how to find out the details of your representatives' record on the New GI Bill and other military-related policies.

Another priority issue for My Rural America is the Farm Bill. Consequently, for the first time ever, we are sharing a press release verbatim as it was written by the contributing organization:

DES MOINES, IOWA, October 17, 2008 - The Iowa Corn Growers Association voiced concern over recent public statements and positions that do not support sound agricultural policy in this Presidential race. The ICGA believes Iowa voters should understand the potential impact to Iowa's economy and overall ag stability on those positions.

"It is not our job to tell you who you should vote for or what party you should follow," said Gary Edwards, president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association "but it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of Iowa corn growers, Iowa consumers, and their future."

"In our current economic crunch, the importance of agriculture has never been more obvious." Said Edwards. "Iowa currently has 640 million in cash reserves due to our strong ag industry, not to mention that ethanol has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, lowered gas prices at the pump, stimulated rural America, created millions of green jobs, and lowered federal farm program costs by billions."

According to the US Department of Agriculture, the ethanol industry added nearly 48 billion dollars to the nation's GDP and generated 4.6 billion in federal tax revenues. The production and use of ethanol just last year, cut oil imports by 228 million barrels as a savings of over $16 billion.

"Change is a theme for both presidential campaigns and no matter what happens this November, there will be a change. What we need to do for our corn grower members is to make sure the new President understands the importance of agriculture and agricultural products."

Current Iowa Corn
Growers Association policy positions include:

* Energy Policy: As the first environmentalists, Iowa's corn growers have worked to build market demand for our current viable source for energy independence. The ICGA supports the continuation of the 45 cent per gallon blenders' credit for ethanol, the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff, the federal Renewable Fuels Standard, and other tax incentives for ethanol (such as E85) that will reduce prices at the pump for consumers.

* Farm Bill: In the farm bill, the ICGA supports a safety net for farmers that is based on revenue and not price, which supports production and market demand. ICGA policy supports farm policy that is trade compliant and supports strong conservation programs that protect our environment. ICGA also supports a crop insurance program at rate levels sufficient to induce crop insurance and designed to avoid the need for disaster assistance.

Current Presidential positions include:
Farm Policy
* McCain*: Opposes agricultural subsidies and has stated he would have vetoed the 2008 Farm Bill. Supports trade compliance.
* Obama*: Pledges to support a strong safety net for farmers. Supports crop revenue insurance program and voted for the 2008 Farm Bill. Pledges to support a permanent mechanism to encourage wide use of crop insurance.
Energy
* McCain*: Opposes tariffs and price supports for ethanol. Signed a letter urging the EPA to exercise its authority to waive the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). His presidential platform calls for an end to the RFS.
* Obama*: Pledges to continue the 45 cent blenders' tax credit and maintain the 54 cent tariff on ethanol. Pledges to increase the RFS to 60 million gallons by 2030. Pledges to support maximum funding for the Department of Energy's alternative fuels program, with a focus on E85.

* For a complete listing of the candidates positions see the attached report
card or visit www.iowacorn.org

###

The ICGA is a membership organization, lobbying on agricultural issues on behalf of its over 6,000 members. ICGA Presidential report card information is based on information gathered from the candidates. Both parties were given equal opportunity to respond to the ICGA survey questions.

Find Out Who Really Supports Our Troops

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has a 2008 Veterans Report Card on line -- interesting because it clearly details this year's votes on issues affecting our veterans, and when you read carefully, it also offers clear documentation about who repeatedly tried to stop support for our veterans and then worked to hide their original votes, i.e., voted against it before they voted for it.

2008 Veterans Report Card

For example, click into your Representative's votes on Senator Jim Webb's New GI Bill, that received strong support in the Senate on the first try, but in the US House took three votes to get it right.

We don't have space to detail every single Member of Congress here on our web page, but you'll find them by clicking Report Card. Then look carefully at the votes because the "grade" that IAVA gives them is sometimes deceiving. For example, we looked at Representative Steve King (R-IA5). King gets a CHECKMARK for voting to support a New GI Bill -- and voting for the New GI Bill is good. However, look more carefully, and you'll see that the documentation actually says:

• A New GI Bill (2nd Vote) YEA 6/19/08 ... (good vote) ... but below it are two more votes
• A Second Rate GI Bill YEA 5/23/08 ... (bad vote) ... and continuing
• A New GI Bill (1st Vote) NEA 5/15/08 ... (bad vote).
  

So yup!! Caught in the act! What King did was try to stop (5/15) the good bill, i.e., the bill supported by IAVA and then he voted (5/23) to support a bill that had much weaker benefits for our vets. Finally, he faced the reality that the Senate had voted consistently to support the New GI Bill so he voted yes when the bill was going to pass in spite of his effort.

In contrast to King's opposition and later "pile on", Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) was consistent in his position, voting twice to support the New GI Bill and also acting as a co-sponsor.

A few notes of caution: Steve King stood with some pretty strong company since he supported both President Bush and Senator John McCain as they opposed the New GI Bill, and both Bush and McCain did all they could to make it a party line vote. However, a quick look at the states of Virginia and Pennsylvania show that some Members and also Senator Barack Obama really did put our soldiers first as they reached across party lines. See below for examples:

VIRGINIA
Voting Consistently YES! Senator John W. Warner (R-VA) and Senator James H. Webb (D-VA) ... each with four consistent votes for Webb's New GI Bill ... were joined by Virginia's three Democratic House members: Robert C. Scott (VA-3); Jim Moran (VA-8) and Rick Boucher (VA-9).

Hiding their vote as they voted NO and NO and finally along-for-the-ride yes! Robert Wittman (VA-1); Thelma Drake (VA-2); J. Randy Forbes (VA-4); Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA-5); Bob Goodlatte (VA-6); Eric Cantor (VA-7); Frank R. Wolf (VA-10), and; Tom Davis (VA-11).

PENNSYLVANIA
Votiing consistently YES! Senator's Arlen Specter (R) and Robert P. Casey (D) stood together for our veterans, too, and in the House, the IAVA website gives two Republican House members credit for doing what right, with Phil English (PA-3) and Jim Gerlach (PA-6) getting"A" ratings for their commitment to veterans. And Democrats Robert A. Brady (PA1), Jason Altmire (PA4), Joe Sestak (PA-7), Patrick J. Murphy (PA 8); Christopher P. Carney (PA-10), Allyson Y Schwartz (PA-13), and Tim Holden (PA-17) got it right, each receiving "A+" ratings from IAVA.

Hiding their vote as they voted NO and NO and finally along-for-the-ride yes! All other PA members split with their Senators and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' much needed New GI Bill.

See for yourself (all states) at IAVA Report Card.