Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement today after the House voted on an insufficient agriculture disaster package instead of bringing up a bipartisan farm bill.  Loebsack has called on Congress to stay in session multiple times to get critical work done.

"The worst case scenario came true for Iowa farmers - Republicans are playing politics and leaving early for their summer vacation while there is a historic drought gripping our state. The Republican Majority has refused to pass the single most important piece of legislation for Iowa Farmers - the farm bill.  While I was hoping it would not come to this point, I was afraid it would, which is why I led the delegation in introducing a disaster relief package for farmers and livestock producers.

"The bottom line is - we need a new farm bill and we need disaster aid.  There are bipartisan bills to do both in the House and Senate, but Republicans would rather play politics and pack up and leave for vacation a day early than do the difficult work of actually getting a reformed farm bill done. Unfortunately, today we were forced to take a vote on a bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate to give the Majority Members cover for their August vacation while Iowa farmers suffer and the fields whither."

 ###

McLaughlin's Met President to Discuss Tax Benefits They've Seen Since Obama Took Office

Des Moines, IA - Today, middle class Iowa family Jason and Ali McLaughlin reacted to a nonpartisan report out yesterday that found in order for Romney to pay for his $5 trillion of tax cuts weighted toward millionaires and billionaires, he'd have to raise taxes by an average of $2,000 on a middle-class family with children.

President Obama visited the McLaughlin's in Cedar Rapids in July. The McLaughlin's spoke to the President about $4900 in tax cuts they have received since President Obama took office. Romney's tax plan would raise the McLaughlin's and other family's taxes, putting a strain on the middle class. Watch a video on the McLaughlin's HERE.

Statement from Cedar Rapids Family Jason and Ali McLaughlin

"We are a typical middle class family. We work full-time to provide for our son, Cooper, and a second child on the way. We had the opportunity to talk to President Obama about the $4,900 in tax relief we have received over the course of his first term. We told him the tax relief is vital to supporting our family whether it's finishing our basement for more space for our growing family or putting money towards Cooper's college education fund.

"That's why we are disappointed to hear about an independent, non-partisan report finding Mitt Romney's tax plan would raise taxes for families who have children and make less than $200,000 would see their taxes go up an average of more than $2,000. And Romney is raising taxes on middle class families to pay for a $5 trillion tax plan skewed to the wealthiest. To some people, $1,000 or $2,000 might not seem like that much. But to us, that's a big deal. A thousand dollars is a big deal. Five hundred dollars is a big deal.

"Our family literally can't afford Mitt Romney.

"President Obama has a plan to prevent a tax hike on the middle class that enacts spending cuts and reforms and asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share again so we can reduce our deficit in a balanced way. On top of the tax cuts our family has benefitted from, The President is calling on Congress to immediately prevent a tax hike on the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000. There is a clear choice between President Obama, who is looking out for families like ours, and Mitt Romney, who puts the interest of the wealthiest American over middle class families."

###

Below is a recent "Morning Bell" piece from The Heritage Foundation regarding Voter ID.  Senior Legal Fellow Hans Von Spakovsky will be publishing a book on the Voter ID issue.

For example a recent attack on voter ID is occurred in Minnesota, where earlier this month, the state Supreme Court will hear a case filed by the League of Women Voters (LWV).

In League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie, the LWV is trying to convince the court to remove a referendum question from the November ballot. Its argument is that voters won't be able to understand the ballot question.

This referendum was passed by the Minnesota legislature in April and would amend the state constitution to require all voters voting in person to "present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot." The amendment would also require absentee voters to be "subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification."...read more

Justice Department Blocks Voter ID at Every Turn

People seemingly voting after they've been dead for years. Drug kingpins buying votes from poor people to sway elections. Non-citizens being bussed to the polls and coached on how to vote. Stories of voting fraud are shocking, and states have been taking action to make sure that elections are secure. But the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, has blocked states at almost every turn.

This is the same Justice Department that stopped a non-partisan election reform by arguing that if party affiliation were removed from a ballot, African-American voters wouldn't be able to identify and vote for the Democrats. Holder has continued to stoke the racial fires, calling a requirement for voters to produce photo identification a "poll tax." Heritage expert Hans von Spakovsky said this argument is merely political. "Holder continues to perpetuate the incendiary error to the public, knowing that the poll-tax assertion is a racially charged one that should not be used lightly," von Spakovsky said. He explained:

Even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?the most liberal appeals court in the country?did not buy the Holder poll tax claim when it reviewed Arizona's voter ID law. In Gonzalez v. Arizona (2012), the Ninth Circuit held that even though "obtaining the free identification required under [Arizona law] may have a cost," such immaterial costs are not a poll tax.

Holder is now "investigating" Pennsylvania's voter ID law, on the left's charge that it disenfranchises minorities.

Former Congressman Artur Davis, an African-American from Alabama who served in Congress as a Democrat from 2003 to 2011, finds this argument incredibly insulting. Speaking at The Heritage Foundation yesterday, Davis held up his driver's license and said, "This is not a billy club. It is not a fire hose. I used to represent Birmingham and Selma, Alabama, and I know something about fire hoses."

In states that have voter ID laws, the real-world results show that minorities have not been disenfranchised by any means. States that require ID to vote have offered free IDs to anyone who does not have one already. In Kansas, which allows any of nine different forms of ID as proof of identity to vote:

Out of a total of 1.713 million registered voters in Kansas, only 32 people had requested a free photo ID as of May 4, 2012. That represents only 0.002 percent of the registered voters in the state. Of those 32 voters, 80 percent were white, 10 percent were black, and the race or ethnicity of 10 percent was unknown. Thus, there is no evidence that minority voters were disproportionately affected.

Georgia, which has had voter ID since 2007, allows six different forms of ID to vote. And there has been no stampede of would-be voters who lack identification: "The number of photo IDs issued by Georgia to individuals who did not already have one of the forms of ID acceptable under state law is remarkably small, averaging less 0.05 percent in most years, and not even reaching three-tenths of 1 percent in a presidential election year."

What happened to minority voting after the law went into effect? In the 2008 presidential election, Hispanic voting in Georgia increased by 140 percent over the 2004 election. African-American voting increased by 42 percent. That is also a higher rate of increase than in other states without voter ID. Von Spakovsky notes:

The increase in turnout of both Hispanics and blacks in the 2008 presidential election after the voter ID law became effective is quite remarkable, particularly given the unproven and totally speculative claims of the Justice Department that the voter ID requirements of Texas and South Carolina will somehow have a discriminatory impact on Hispanic and black voters. In fact, Georgia had the largest turnout of minority voters in its history.

The evidence that producing photo ID is a burden simply isn't there. "How can it be a burden to ask people to do something they do all the time?" asked Congressman Davis, who said he went to a news organization to do an interview on voter ID and had to produce his driver's license to enter the news organization.

The Justice Department requires ID from visitors as well.

Voter ID battles are not over, and activist groups are trying everything they can think of to challenge these requirements. The Minnesota legislature passed a referendum that placed the question of voter ID on the ballot for citizens to decide. But the ballot question is under litigation because the League of Women Voters has sued, arguing that the question is "misleading" to voters. The Minnesota Supreme Court will be considering it.

In the state of Kentucky, it has become clear that buying votes is a common practice. A person's vote can often be bought for $50. Recently, it has come to light that cocaine and marijuana dealers are using drug money to buy votes and turn elections. According to one report, "In the Eastern District of Kentucky alone, more than 20 public elected officials and others have either been convicted or pleaded guilty in various vote-buying cases just in the last two years."

America cannot allow its elections to be anything but secure and legal. Preventing voter fraud is common sense, and it is outrageous that the U.S. Justice Department would stand in the way.

RESOURCES:

Holder Gets It Completely Wrong on Poll Taxes and Voter ID

The Problem of Non-Citizen Voting

Lessons from the Voter ID Experience in Kansas

Lessons from the Voter ID Experience in Georgia

Without Proof: The Unpersuasive Case Against Voter Identification

Mark Riley filed nomination papers today with the Secretary of State's office to be placed on the ballot as an Independent in District 90.  Mr. Riley was the Republican nominee for the State Senate in District 43 in 2010 facing State Senator Joe Seng.

Mark Riley is a locomotive engineer for Canadian Pacific railroad and a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen local 266.  Mr. Riley is a retired Marine Infantry SNCO and is a member of the American Legion post 26 and the Davenport VFW.  He is also a member of the Davenport Family Y.

Mark Riley is married to Elizabeth Riley who is the business manager for the Adler Theater.  They have 3 children, Ethan, Robert and William.  William is a special needs child who graduated Central High school this year and will continue to reside with his parents.

Mr. Riley is running as an Independent whose campaign theme is "for the common good".  He believes that the political system has been broken by special interest money which has led to the extreme polarization of both parties.  This polarization has affected the ability of State and Federal legislatures to function as the Founding Fathers intended.  In his State Senate race in 2010 Mr. Riley was threatened by the Iowa Corn Growers association to support Ethanol or $5000 would be given to his opponent.  Riley continues to oppose Ethanol as  theft from working class families and "stupid" policy even before our current drought,  He feels that Ethanol is an example of how special interest has corrupted our politicians and political system to be unable to respond to "the common good'  of the citizens it is supposed to represent.

The candidate also believes that too much emphasis and resources have been given to rural and small town Iowa and will support initiatives that require the State to spend monies collected in user taxes such as the fuel tax to be spent primarily in the areas in which it was collected.  The candidate feels that Iowa has expanded its Highway system to much and should take federal monies to begin establishing light rail connections to all Iowa's major urban areas.

The candidate supports creating reduced tax zones for Manufacturing Companies in Iowa's large cities so that there is no financial incentive to build or develop in rural Iowa, but rather in Iowa's Cities were infrastructure is already in place.

Mark Riley will advocate for policies that increase the Median Income of Iowa Families that have steadily declined since the 1970's.   The results of High Unemployment and falling wages for families have made our large Cities unable to meet basic needs and staff public servants.

Mark Riley will also run on a position to De-criminalize Marijuana and follows the philopshy of prison reformer Chuck Colson with regard to the over incarceration of our citizens for non-violent crimes.