Letters to the Editor: Why Harris and Walz are the right choice for rural America

I’m a 34-year-old who farms, manages farmland and sells farms in rural Iowa. I am the grandson of people who’ve worked the land and a proud citizen of a town of 5,400 people. I am also a former, three-time All-American and professional golfer. Most would peg me as a supporter of the former president. I am not. I’m supporting the 2024 Harris-Walz ticket. Here’s why.

At my core, are the small-town values of hard work, service and caring about my neighbors. Those of us who work and love the land have a patriotic duty to tend it well and pass it down to the next generation. I want an administration that will represent those values and invest in my farm and community.

Coming from farm country you would expect most of us to be skeptical of democrats like Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz. However, they share the same values of hard work, service and caring for their communities as I do. Harris comes from a working-class family and has built a career helping her community. Walz has done the same. Harris and Walz will make the investments to empower our farms and communities to thrive. And when we thrive, we produce what the world needs. Together the team of Harris and Walz will elevate farmers, ranchers and our rural communities. Their values will put policies in place that will allow us all to be successful. Rural America produces the food, feed, fuel and fiber that makes America such a great place to live. We need more farmers and more people in our rural communities. Just like diversity is important in our fields, it is also important to have diversity in our communities. It makes us resilient. It makes our country resilient.

Harris and Walz live the values held dear by rural Americans. Their policies show commitment to our rural communities and that towns like mine are the backbone of the country.

Their pro-family policies like the child tax credit would make it easier for working families in rural areas to purchase everyday needs for their kids. They will fight for Medicare and Social Security and continue to make sure that insulin is capped at $35 a month. With them in the White House, our seniors won’t have to pay more than $2,000 a year for prescriptions. Small businesses and entrepreneurs, vital to our rural communities, would get more tax breaks and less red tape making business simpler and easier in rural America.

For those of us in agriculture, the protection of our safety net with policies that will fight for family farm agriculture and invest in new markets for our agricultural products like sustainable aviation fuel. We need leaders who will move beyond the “get big or get out” policies that do nothing but hurt and erode our way of life.

Those of us who live in rural America are fiercely independent people. We love and care about our neighbors no matter their political affiliation. We show up and help get crops harvested when a neighbor gets sick or passes away. We rally if someone in our community is diagnosed with cancer, or dies suddenly from an accident. I know this because I have seen it happen repeatedly in my small town. At our best, this is who we are as rural Americans. I support Harris and Walz because they share my values. Love for our country, love for our community and love for our neighbors.  

Joshua Manske, Algona

What we’re voting for

Someone recently asked me why I like Trump. My answer was that I don’t really like a lot of things about Trump.

But this election is not about choosing the most “likable” person.

We are voting between two vastly different ideologies. We are voting for the country we want to leave our children and grandchildren.

Trump represents that future and has proven that he can deliver. He is a patriot to the core and even served his country for four years without pay.

That moment when someone says, “I can’t believe you're voting for Trump.” I simply reply, “I’m NOT voting for Trump.”

I'm voting for the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. I’m voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored.

I'm voting for secure borders and legal immigration. I am voting for election integrity to include mandatory voter ID. (Why would anyone vote against this?)

I'm voting for the Second Amendment and my Right to defend my life and my family.

I'm voting for the police to be respected once again.

I am voting for law & order and an end to allowing protesters to trespass and burn our cities, destroying innocent small business. (Tim Walz)

I am voting for personal responsibility and the end of the revolving door where criminals are being put back on the street. (Kamala Harris)

I'm voting for the next Supreme Court Justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'm voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America's involvement in foreign conflicts.

I'm voting for the Electoral College and for the Republic in which we live.

I'm voting for the continued appointment of Federal Judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'm voting for keeping our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over the world — to China, Mexico and other foreign countries.

I am voting for doing away with all of the freebies given to all of the illegals and not looking after the needs of the American citizens and homeless veterans.

I'm voting for the military and the veterans who fought for this country.

I'm voting to keep men out of women's sports.

I'm voting for peace progress in the Middle East.

I'm voting to fight against human/child trafficking.

I'm voting for Freedom of Religion.

I am voting for the return of teaching math, history and science instead of the indoctrination of our children.

I'm not just voting for one person.

I'm voting for the future of my country.

I'm voting for my children and my grandchildren to ensure their freedoms.

America is the greatest country in the world, hence why everyone wants to immigrate here.

So why do you want to change it?

Why do politicians want to enact policies that have failed in other countries throughout history?

I'm not voting for Trump.

I'm voting for America.

Harlan and Sharon Grau, Bonnie Hach, Carolyn DeRoos, Elizabeth Bozonie

The nicest people you could meet

Do you know someone who does’t swear, perhaps never has? Or someone who doesn’t smoke or do drugs, again, probably never has. Someone who writes gospel music in his spare time? How about someone who never complains, never gets angry and is incapable of telling a lie? This same person spoke broken English two years ago and didn’t even know what a McDonald’s was, but graduated high school in May and is now in college, paying his own way with a part-time job.

I know this person vey well. He has lived in our home for almost two years. He is without exception the most honest person I know. But have met several others who are just like him. One is his uncle from Springfield, Ohio. They are the nicest people you would ever want to meet.

They are Haitians, and they do not eat cats.

Dan Robinson, Storm Lake

No eminent domain for Summit pipeline

On Friday, Sept 20, I attended the public meeting in Lakeside on the CO2 capture pipeline project. Summit proposes to take the CO2 produced by many ethanol plants and pipe it under high pressure to North Dakota and inject it permanently underground. The pipeline company would get large amounts of tax money for this, since CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary cause of climate change. They are requesting eminent domain for this project. I asked the Iowa Utilities Commission, which decides on eminent domain, what criteria they use for determining a “public good,” which is a requirement for granting it. They refused to answer, referring to a multi-hundred page report. I gave an example: would you grant eminent domain to build a bank? No answer.

I got answers from Summit on the capacity of the proposed storage site (allegedly plenty), net CO2 savings vs gross savings (several months of CO2 savings are needed to be deducted due to construction and operating costs). They said that the project would use only 0.1% of Iowa’s water, but that is a very large amount and we are already under water use restrictions.

CO2 in high concentrations can kill, and several questioners were worried about pipeline safety. The Summit people refused to say how far from the pipeline was dangerous since every site was different, though they have done many computer simulations of it. I told them that's fine, but they should give a danger zone to each landowner taking into account the particular conditions of that parcel; they still refused. It seems likely that the answer would be very worrisome; if it were reassuring, they would provide it.I asked about how long ethanol will be viable given that electrification is coming. If ethanol production decreases, the pipeline will be unprofitable.  They cited ethanol airplane fuel. I told them that the navy has discovered an affordable process to make aviation fuel from only electricity and sea water; no response. I pointed out that this project will soon not be profitable since the government payment only lasts 12 years. They said that they will also make money by having ethanol plants pay them for making their carbon intensity lower thus opening up other markets. But if ethanol demand drops a lot, that will be of little help. They said that Brazilian ethanol has a lower carbon intensity so several U.S. markets can buy from Brazil but not from Iowa. Much of that is because Brazil powers their plants with biomass while Iowa uses natural gas. It seems that a cheaper and safer way to lower the carbon score of Iowa ethanol plants is to power the plants with switchgrass instead of building a pipeline.

Summit’s primary selling point is that the pipeline would make more money for ethanol plants.  I don’t think this qualifies as a public good to grant eminent domain. Summit’s secondary selling point is that it reduces CO2 emissions, thus helping with climate change. Their current plan is to not use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (pumping gas in and forcing oil out), but it is clear that the pipeline will in the future be used for enhanced oil recovery. Using the CO2 to pump more oil would make Summit a lot of money but defeat the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions.

Please send a letter or email (not phone call) to the Iowa Utilities Commission https://iuc.iowa.gov/about-us/contact-us asking it to deny eminent domain for Summit’s CO2 pipeline project. Cite docket number HLP-2023-0004. The proposed project has a lot of down side: unknown safety dangers, use of a tremendous amount of scarce groundwater, damage to a lot of farmland, and taking millions of taxpayer dollars. The proposed benefit of economic development is not a good reason for granting eminent domain, and the reduction of carbon intensity score can be better done other ways. While reduction of CO2 emissions is of value, the reduction is less than it seems, and the pipeline will eventually be used for production of more oil, which defeats the purpose.

Jim Eliason, Storm Lake