This constitutes my Six-Point Plan for Iowa, but is far from an all-inclusive statement of my positions. I will continue to add more positions below as the campaign progresses.
Iowa is a state with so much potential because of its location, its geography, its economic diversity, and – most importantly – because of its people.
But, last year, our state ranked 48th in population growth, in no small part because it ranked 34th in state and local tax burden.
The average Iowan paid $7,579 in state and local taxes last year. We can do so much better.
I have a 6-point plan – these are my six highest priorities – that aims to improve the lives of all Iowans:
The Bible says, “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.” (Isaiah 60:12, ESV) It also says, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:13-14)
The Word is absolutely clear that at the moment of conception, a new life is formed. And, even the science of human reproduction backs that up. When male and female reproductive cells merge to form a human zygote genetically distinct from both parents, a flash of light – called a “zinc spark” – signals this moment of creation.
As a result, I am an absolute abolitionist when it comes to the issue of abortion. If there is no right to life, then we just do not have any rights. Every innocent life should be protected, even when it's financially inconvenient for either or both parents.
The stigma and pain of rape is also a difficult issue to tackle, but I believe ending the life of an innocent third party does not provide justice – rather it exacerbates the deep psychological and physical pain inflicted upon the mother.
Ultimately, more needs to be done to provide life-affirming care and support for all mothers. Not just until birth, but in the months and years that follow. One of the easiest ways to reverse population decline is to stop murdering our next generations of potential greatness.
I have drafted a constitutional amendment and enabling legislation to protect life without interfering with the state's authority to seek justice for the most heinous crimes, or Iowa Citizens' rights to protect themselves or others from imminent harm. It also includes a number of life-affirming measures, including no-fee adoptions. Read the full legislative package I have prepared to submit on my first day in office right here: Defense Of Life Amendment Act
What is yours is yours. It does not belong to anyone else – especially big business wielding the power and authority of government. Once you have purchased property – any property – no one should be able to take it and give it to another, nor should they be able to steal your property for the ambiguous purpose of “economic development.”
We’ve watched, repeatedly, as those with pie-in-the-sky plans file lawsuits against property owners who just don’t want to sell their land. Many of these are Century Farmers, others are stewards who just want to take care of their small corner of the world to the best of their ability.
And yet, they are forced to give up all of that so others may make a fast buck on a scam hiding behind shady “climate science” that even the Sierra Club has rejected. Most egregiously, it’s not just a handful of Iowans and Midwesterners who will benefit most from this boondoggle, but also a few international conglomerates – all so a few corporations can claim they’re “doing something” to reduce their “carbon footprints.”
Protecting property rights must go much further than fighting against “carbon capture” pipelines. It’s equally unconscionable – I address this more in Point 3 – to take property away to cover unpaid property taxes.
Forced annexation, in my view, is also a form of government theft. Many rural residents choose to live a rural life because of the relative freedom it affords. They should never be forced to lose that freedom without any promise of the services that should be commensurate with city living.
I have drafted a constitutional amendment and enabling legislation to protect property rights in Iowa from all forms of eminent domain abuse. Read the full legislative package I have prepared to submit on my first day in office right here: Limited Eminent Domain Legislative Package
Thankfully, Iowa’s state income tax policy mirrors federal tax policy. So, elements of the Big Beautiful Bill Act – including no taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security – have already been automatically enacted at the state level. But there is so much more than must be done to restructure the state’s revenue streams.
Iowa has a tiered tax structure. The biggest piece comes from income taxes, amounting to roughly $8.13 billion in the year to come. The next biggest piece – another $7 billion – comes from property taxes. On a per capita basis, that’s $4,670; for a family of four, that’s $18,680. To pay that off, a husband and wife, on average, have to work 49 of their 265 working days – nearly 10 full weeks – every year.
It’s too much of a burden, and it holds our whole state back. We can’t do it all at once – it can only be done incrementally in tandem with real spending cuts (see Point 5) – but we can certainly take big whacks at it in short order if we can also address the need for new funding streams that are far less burdensome on everyday Iowans (see Point 4) and the need to re-evaluate how we spend taxpayers’ hard-earned money (see Point 5).
In addition to eliminating property and income taxes altogether, we must also roll back the state sales tax rate to 5 percent. To ensure a government that provides all essential services, we should also be prepared to eliminate all sales tax exemptions.
This still results in a substantial net reduction in taxes paid by the average Iowan. That means more spending power and greater freedom for all.
There is no greater economic power than compounded interest on investments. This is the principle that makes 401(k)-type retirement plans so successful. Fiduciary investment, on average, provides a 10 percent annual return on investment.
I have proposed the creation of a State of Iowa sovereign wealth fund – called The Iowa Fund – the would generate revenue for investment from less than a penny on the dollar of Iowa GDP. Here’s how it would work:
Taxes:
Governance:
Dividends:
Transparency:
Bonding:
In this scenario, assuming an 8% sales and services tax with no exemptions and a $274 billion state GDP, an estimated $21.9 billion per year could be generated. Assuming growth to be flat economically and static population-wise, up to $3 billion in interest would be generated in the first year, up to $6 billion by Year 3, and roughly $15 billion by Year 5.
That’s the worst-case scenario. At just 2% economic growth, which is only modestly better than the state’s current five-year average, the numbers change substantially. Year 3 would see $8 billion in interest and Year 5 would see $20 billion in interest. At those points, property and income taxes would be fully abolished, respectively.
Year 10 would see $80 billion, and by Year 20, the interest revenue would be $275 billion. The state sales tax would also be in the process of sunsetting, if not already at 0 percent. When that occurs, all other state taxes and surcharges would be eliminated and the state is self-funded just on the compounding interest generated by The Iowa Fund.
By Year 30, interest income would grow to $750 billion, and by Year 50, it would be far exceeding $1 trillion – more likely closer to $3 trillion – for just one year. Half of that money would automatically roll over, but the other half would be reinvested into infrastructure projects or paid back directly to the Citizens of Iowa through dividends.
Of course, this is for demonstration purposes only. As the Iowa economy – which currently ranks 50th in the nation – is finally unshackled and explodes with new growth, the amount invested will grow even faster than this projection.
Most importantly, the Citizens of Iowa would be unshackled from their government.
Read the full legislative package I have prepared to submit on my first day in office right here: The Iowa Fund Legislative
All too often states eliminate their revenue streams without addressing how to make up the revenue, telling voters, “It’s OK, we’re going to spend less.” But then they fail to get serious about fiscal responsibility and spend themselves into fiscal crises of their own making.
Let’s learn from their mistakes – or, as we say in my current profession, “fail forward” – and acknowledge getting rid of property and income taxes and rolling back sales taxes will put a pinch on budgets. This means we have to sit down and have a serious conversation about what constitutes essential services.
This is the hardest part, because for far too long, politicians on both sides have equated how much something is cared about with how much money is thrown at it. And, it’s not “nice” to tell others that what they consider a priority may not actually be an essential service for which the state should provide funding.
From my experience in the rapidly shrinking newspaper industry, the best approach is a bottom-up approach that emphasizes funding at the level closest to where the service is provided. K-12 education and Health & Human Services being the biggest recipients of General Fund dollars, the goal should be to ensure at least 85 cents of every dollar spent goes directly to the provision of classroom instruction and direct client services, respectively.
You do this by:
In 2020, the state’s initial response to COVID-19 – whereby, under flawed medical guidance, Gov. Kim Reynolds labeled some businesses as “essential,” but tried to force churches to close – exposed a significant flaw in state governance. We all discovered the Office of Governor has far too much executive power that must be reined in, regardless of the virtue of the officeholder who wields it.
My general answer to almost every question related to the Second Amendment is, “Is there any part of ‘shall not be infringed’ that is ambiguous?” The Federalist Papers clearly state the intent of the Founders with regard to the Second Amendment – that a well-armed citizenry was not only necessary for national defense and self-protection, but also as an important hedge of protection against tyranny.
It may seem extreme, but if you take the logical conclusion of the Founders’ position to our modern-day setting, then Americans – by right – should be able to acquire tactical nuclear weapons. That is NOT what I am advocating; rather, I do not believe there should be any limitation to the firearms Americans can possess for self-protection, national defense, and as a deterrent against those who would seek to undermine or remove our freedom.
This extends to so-called “gun-free” zones. I believe teachers and staff should be allowed to be armed for the protection of themselves and the students whose lives are in their hands. I believe this would provide immediate protection for students who face the unthinkable horror of an active shooter scenario in their schools.
I also think it’s counterproductive for an employer to tell their workers they cannot be armed for self-protection, even if it is their right to do so, but I also believe that right ends at the entrance to their building. Employees have a right to self-defense everywhere they go, and banning them from keeping a firearm in their vehicle infringes heavily on that right for workers who commute or need to run errands after a shift.
I would support and am prepared to draft legislation to make these important changes in Iowa.
Thomas Jefferson – who once famously said, “I cannot live without books” – did not look at books as simple pleasures to be consumed and quickly discarded:
“Books constitute capital. A library book lasts as long as a house, for hundreds of years. It is not, then, an article of mere consumption but fairly of capital, and often in the case of professional men, setting out in life, it is their only capital.”
The lifelong return on investment from books, then, is education and enlightenment. He advocated for 18th Century “circulating libraries” in every county, which he said “would do more extensive good at small expense.”
For those who don’t know what ALPR stands for, it means “Automatic License Plate Recognition”. It’s an AI-powered means by which law enforcement can scan vast numbers of vehicles to capture their license plate numbers to track those vehicles’ movements.
I work with this type of Vision AI software at my “day job,” so I understand how it works and how the data collected sits in a vast “data ocean” until it is searched. Ostensibly, the data is only kept for a limited number of days – although honestly, this is due to the vast amount of data collected and the limited storage capacity most law enforcement agencies have at their disposal – and will only be searched when there is a true threat to public safety.
However well intentioned and noble the capture of this data is meant to be, it does not change the fact that collecting such massive amounts of data on random citizens is an egregious breach of our Fifth Amendment protections. As the data is collected, police have no probable cause to suspect any crime has been committed – it’s being gathered “just in case” a crime might have been committed.
Taken to the extreme, this is the same type of cameras and software that has been used by the Chinese Communist Party in its “social credit score” program that it uses to strike fear in the hearts of the Chinese people. The tools of truly authoritarian regimes have no place in a free and open society.
Do I want police to catch a murder or robbery suspect as quickly as possible? Absolutely, but I also trust our law enforcement to have the investigative skills to track those suspects down without violating the rights of the innocent bystanders in the process.
I’m very supportive of the careful and responsible use of AI to improve operational efficiencies, but I cannot abide by any use of technology that becomes and end-around for our civil liberties, regardless of how noble the intent may be.
This is something that was desperately needed 15 years ago, but now it’s become less attractive – in large part because of the excellent fiduciary expertise of our current Treasurer and his team – and so many are questioning the need to do so.
Yes, IPERS is once again solvent and on track to be 100% self-funded, but it’s not there yet, and there’s no guarantee it will get there. And, if a less-successful team were to be placed in charge of the state treasury, it’s not outside the realm of possibility the fund could find its way back into insolvency.
As well as IPERS is doing now, however, it does not outperform a typical 60-40 (60% stocks, 40% bonds) 401(k). Most Iowa teachers have already moved away from IPERS to the more portable TIAA-CREF retirement plan option, a 457(b) deferred taxation retirement savings plan, or both.
IRS rules do not prohibit “double dipping” with both a 401(k) and 457(b), and you can continue to contribute to the 457(b) option even after you have reached your annual maximum contribution to the 401(k). Both options tend to perform at least one full percentage point better – per year – than IPERS.
Moving to plans that are more consistent with those found in the civilian workforce – I personally contribute 10% with a 4% match from my employer – still provides a very strong retirement nest egg at the end of a typical working career. The keys are consistent contributions and the power of compounded interest.
The best way to ensure that for those who work – whether in the private or public sectors – is to substantially reduce their tax burdens. I cover that quite extensively in my Six Point Plan.
I am for freedom and liberty, period, but also in a biblical sense. Freedom comes with responsibility. I think all Iowans should be encouraged – and educated – on how to be fully informed about anything related to our health and nutrition.
I will always vote to defend and promote informed consent, individual privacy with regard to personal health information, the rights of parents to be both informed and in control of health decisions related to their children, religious freedom, and freedom of speech as it relates to health issues. This includes parents’ right to choose whether to vaccinate their children, and the frequency schedule of those vaccinations if they choose to do so.
I find it interesting that when we’re talking about killing innocent children in the womb, it’s, “My body, my choice.” But, when we’re legitimately talking about your body and your choice as it relates to vaccinations – whether by the government or private employers – suddenly, the goalposts are moved and all discussion is shut down in favor of “the science.”
But science is entirely about debate and the interrogation of data to ultimately reach the truth. I was still a journalist when COVID-19 was inflicted upon the world. But, a year before that, I wrote a profile on the messenger RNA technology that formed the backbone of the most prominent so-called “COVID vaccine.” I knew its capabilities and its limitations, and most importantly, I understood the potential health consequences.
I tried to share that information with as many people as I could, and was promptly labeled a “kook.” Hindsight, however, proved the importance of being informed correctly about important and potentially life-altering health decisions.
I will always vote to protect Iowans from vaccine mandates. Likewise, I will always vote to protect parents’ right to know and control, particularly in light of the growth of “school-based health centers” around the country. I also support giving Iowans the freedom to decide what foods, supplements, and medicines they may want to consume or give to their families.
I have also seen what can happen when tap water is over-fluoridated. In the modern era, fluoridation of public water sources is unnecessary and – when combined with other sources of fluoride in our daily lives – potentially damaging to one’s health. I would support an effort to explore ending the government mandate for fluoridated water in Iowa.
REAL ID is dead on arrival for me. There is absolutely zero need for a national identification database. This goes far beyond a states’ rights issue to me, and tracks very closely with my position on ALPR cameras and the use of Vision AI software for community policing.
Finally, I will oppose any effort to keep vital health and safety information out of the hands of consumers when it comes to “EPA-approved” pesticide labeling. I’m not saying any particular chemical is harmful to humans or the environment. However, I’m concerned that chemical companies are eager to limit the amount of information available to the public about their products.
Article V is one of the ways the states can rein in an abusive federal government. It’s never been invoked in our nation’s history because the outcome of a “Convention of the States” can never be predicted. Keep in mind, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was a “Convention of the States” – held illegally, per the Articles of Confederation – and look what happened there.
Typically, whenever an issue gains enough steam that it looks like an Article V convention will be invoked, Congress acts and adopts a constitutional amendment to address the matter. I strongly suspect the current Congress, if faced with the prospect of an Article V convention aimed at term limits, would seek an amendment that provides limits, but also grandfathers themselves in.
Either way, in the long term, the American people win. More than 85 percent of Americans – regardless of political affiliation – want term limits for members of Congress. I absolutely agree with them. That is why I have signed the U.S. Term Limits Pledge to fight for an Article V convention to invoke term limits on Congress.
