Connect with us

Iowa

Watchdog group, GOP U.S. House members blast ‘reckless’ earmark spending • Iowa Capital Dispatch

Published

on

Watchdog group, GOP U.S. House members blast ‘reckless’ earmark spending • Iowa Capital Dispatch


WASHINGTON – A group opposed to wasteful government spending and a handful of U.S. House Republicans warned at a Wednesday press event that project-specific spending known as earmarks was contributing to an increase in the national debt.

The event to discuss the Citizens Against Government Waste’s latest annual report, titled the 2024 Congressional Pig Book and released Wednesday, highlighted congressional earmarks and called on lawmakers to rein in government spending.

Leaders of the nonpartisan organization, which works to oppose “waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government,” according to its website, were joined by Republican House members and a live potbelly pig to address earmarks and rising debt limits.

The organization’s annual pig book highlights earmarks, often called “pork.” An earmark is a project-specific funding allocation approved by Congress through the annual appropriations process.

Advertisement

The group identified 8,222 earmarks for fiscal year 2024, totaling $22.7 billion. That’s 13% less than fiscal year 2023 but still the fifth-highest spending year for earmarks since the CAGW began releasing its annual report in 1991.

Republicans ended the controversial spending practice in 2011 after winning control of the House. A decade later, Democrats and Republicans voted to allow earmarked spending again.

Defenders of the practice say it allows members of Congress, who know the needs of their states and districts, to respond with specific funding. The projects comprise a small portion of total federal spending. And lawmakers have a chance to vote on them as part of appropriations bills.

But some Republicans continue to oppose them. Four members on Wednesday gave a similar rationale Wednesday as Republicans did when they eliminated earmarks in 2011, calling them a form of wasteful government spending that’s adding to a rising national debt.

Rep. Bob Good, a Republican from Virginia, stressed how much debt the country continues to accumulate.

Advertisement

“Here we are with $35 trillion in debt,” he said. “After it took us about 200 years to accumulate the first trillion, now we’re accumulating a trillion every four months or so.”

Data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and a CNBC analysis confirms these amounts.

Good, the chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, criticized his party for passing a 2023 law to suspend the debt limit. The measure allowed Congress to appropriate “as much as we can joyfully, gleefully spend together,” Good said.

Speakers at the event, which included Reps. Debbie Lesko of Arizona, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Tom McClintock of California as well as Good, shared the sentiment that permanently ditching earmarks would help restore Republicans’ reputation as the “fiscally responsible” party.

“Republicans cannot reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility until we end once and for all this reckless and self-indulgent practice,” McClintock said.

Advertisement

Maine and Alaska benefit

Members also spoke to the disproportionate allocation of earmarked spending in Congress.

CAGW President Tom Schatz opened Wednesday’s event by highlighting who in Congress received the most funding in earmarks this fiscal year. Earmarks are required to have a sponsor in the House and Senate.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, took home the most bacon this year with 231 earmarks totaling $576 million.

That total was almost 24% more than the legislator with the second-highest number of earmarks, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska who is also on the Appropriations Committee. Murkowski’s 185 earmarks amounted to $466 million.

Members of the appropriations committees in the House and Senate, which write the annual spending laws, gained much more in earmarks than the average member, the report notes.

Advertisement

“Earmarks continue to provide the most benefit to the most powerful legislators,” Schatz said.

The rest of the top five were Sen. Angus King of Maine, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. King caucuses with Democrats, though he is an independent.

Together, these five senators received 10.3% of all earmark spending in fiscal 2024, but make up less than 1% of all members of Congress.

Senators generally won more earmarked spending than their House counterparts, with 37 of the top 40 lawmakers by dollar amount coming from the Senate.

Schatz also spoke to the differences between the parties. Nearly all – 99.6% – congressional Democrats took advantage of the spending practice, while only 62.4% of Republicans did.

Advertisement

The CAGW president also noted an uneven distribution of funding among states and territories.

A potbelly pig, named Poppy, pictured June 12, 2024 at a press conference opposing earmarks. (Photo by Lia Chien/States Newsroom)

States with smaller populations receive more “pork per capita,” with Alaska taking the top spot at $645 in earmark spending per person. Maine, with $434 per person, and Hawaii at $336, followed.

The bottom three jurisdictions included Indiana at $4.32 per person, Puerto Rico at $3.67 per person and North Dakota, which received no earmarks.

‘Legalized bribery’

McClintock pointed to earmarks as a cause of corruption in Congress. He said if a project is worthy of funding, it will receive the money under “open, competitive bidding.”

“Worthy projects in open, competitive bidding don’t need earmarks,” he said. “They rise or fall on their merits.”

Advertisement

Good further supported McClintock’s claim of corruption, saying earmarks entice members to vote on legislation to benefit their districts.

“Make no mistake about it,” Good said. “Earmarks are used to buy bad votes for bad bills.”

He added that committee chairs often find earmarks much more rewarding. Appropriations subcommittee chairs can add earmarked funds into spending bills to entice their colleagues to pass a bill, Good said.

“Folks, this is nothing but legalized bribery,” Norman said.

Lesko said celebrating legislators that bring home earmarks makes government spending increase.

Advertisement

“The people like Tom [McClintock] and I and others that actually want to reduce government spending, so it’s responsible, aren’t celebrated at all,” she said.

She pointed the finger at her fellow Arizona representative, Democrat Greg Stanton, after he secured a $700,000 earmark to renovate an economics and business finance program for fourth, fifth and sixth graders.

“Now, is this coming from his bank account?” Lesko said. “No, it’s coming from your bank account.”

Asked Wednesday about Lesko’s comment, a spokesperson for Stanton replied with a written statement from last month’s earmark announcement.

In the release, Stanton said the funding “is an investment in the future of Arizona’s children.”

Advertisement

McClintock closed the press conference by advocating to once again put an end to earmarks.

He referred to former House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who was instrumental in banning earmarks in 2011.

“It can be done,” he said. “It has been done, it will need to be done again.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Iowa

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare

Published

on

Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare


AURELIA, Iowa (KTIV) – A Northwest Iowa woman is facing charges of harassment and pandering for prostitution after two incidents took place in December 2025.

Forty-seven-year-old Kristal Miller of Odebolt was taken into custody on an arrest warrant and faces three charges: one count of pandering for prostitution and two counts of first-degree harassment, according to court documents.

Kristal Miller(Cherokee County Jail)

The charges stem from two separate incidents that took place on Thursday, Dec. 18. 2025.

According to court documents, at 6:15 a.m., Miller reportedly went to the Casey’s General Store, located at 100 Pearl St. in Aurelia. Documents state Miller approached an employee and customers, requesting money from them.

Advertisement

Authorities state Miller claimed she was wanted by the FBI and told people, if anyone called the police, “she would kill them.”

During this encounter, she also allegedly asked an employee to remove the string from her hooded sweatshirt. Documents state when the employee refused this request, she threatened to strangle them.

That same day at 7 a.m., Miller reportedly approached a female employee outside an Aurelia daycare and asked them for money.

Court documents stated Miller suggested the unnamed employee leave her boyfriend. Miller reportedly told the employee, if she did, then she and Miller would both be paid.

Authorities say when she was told no by the employee, Miller became upset and started yelling at them.

Advertisement

Miller also allegedly threatened to “steal her car” and ”take her away to her guys to start a new life.”

She was booked into the Cherokee County Jail on a cash-only bond of $5,000. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled in Cherokee for Friday, Jan. 9, at 10 a.m.

Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Iowa

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says

Published

on

Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says


play

  • The Iowa Supreme Court is reviewing a 2024 law that allows law enforcement officers to appeal their placement on a Brady-Giglio list.
  • A dispute between Jefferson County’s attorney and sheriff led to the sheriff being placed on the list, which identifies officers with credibility issues.
  • The county attorney argues the law is unconstitutional because it lets judges interfere with a prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence to defendants.

A feud between two Jefferson County officials has landed before the Iowa Supreme Court, which must decide if a 2024 addition to Iowa’s Rights of Peace Officers law is unconstitutional.

Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding is asking the state’s high court to overturn what he calls the “constitutionally vacuous” law, which allows officers to petition the courts to be removed from their county’s Brady-Giglio list.

Advertisement

Named for two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the lists compiled by prosecutors identify law enforcement officers and others whose credibility is in question, and it can provide grounds for questioning their testimony in court.

After a dispute over a case involving a sheriff’s deputy’s use of force, Moulding in 2024 notified Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond he was placing him on the Brady-Giglio list. Richmond petitioned a court to reverse Moulding’s decision, and a district judge did, finding Richmond’s actions in connection with the case, while unprofessional, did not bring his honesty or credibility into question.

In his appeal, Moulding argues that’s not up to the court to decide, and that the law lets judges improperly intrude on prosecutors’ professional judgment and, ultimately, defendants’ rights.

“The practical real application of (the 2024 law) is to create a Kafkaesque scenario where a criminal defendant could face the prospect of criminal charges involving a State witness who is so lacking in credibility that the State’s attorney has qualms about even calling him to testify, but is prevented from disclosure,” Moulding wrote. “Such a situation is unconscionable, and underlines the constitutional vacuousness of the statute itself.”

Advertisement

The court has not yet scheduled arguments for the case, which could have impacts far beyond Jefferson County. Attorney Charles Gribble, representing Richmond, said this is just one of three Iowa Brady-Giglio appeals he personally is involved in.

What is a Brady-Giglio list?

Under the Fifth Amendment, criminal defendants are entitled to due process of law. In Brady v. Maryland in 1963 and in subsequent cases the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process requires a prosecutor to disclose any known exculpatory evidence to the defense. That includes anything giving rise to doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, including law enforcement officers.

In 2022, Iowa formalized that process by mandating prosecuting agencies maintain a Brady-Giglio list of officers whose credibility can be questioned due to past dishonesty or other misconduct. The law requires agencies to notify officers when they are being put on a list and allows them to seek reconsideration.

Advertisement

Being placed on a list can damage or destroy an officer’s career, as prosecutors generally will decline to call them as witnesses or to bring charges that would depend on their testimony.

2024 law gives courts a role in Brady-Giglio lists

Iowa’s 2024 law went beyond requiring officers be notified of their placement on a Brady-Giglio list by giving them the right to appeal to a district court if their prosecuting agency refuses to take them off a list. The law requires judges to confidentially review evidence and allows them to affirm, modify or reverse an officer’s Brady-Giglio listing “as justice may require.”

In less than two years, courts have reversed local prosecutors on several Brady-Giglio placements, including a messy Henry County dispute in which prosecutors accused a sheriff’s deputy of making misleading statements on a search warrant application.

What happened in Jefferson County?

The lawsuit before the Iowa Supreme Court involves an April 2024 traffic stop by a Jefferson County deputy. As laid out in a subsequent memo by Moulding, video recordings show the deputy handling the driver roughly and, when the man complains, telling him “I can do whatever I want” and, “You’re not going to tell me what I can and can’t do. … You’re going to learn what respect is, young man.”

After learning about the incident, Moulding wrote, he repeatedly emailed Richmond, asking if the deputy’s actions had violated any county policies. Richmond did not respond. Concerned about possible litigation against the county, Moulding then asked another county to conduct an investigation. While the details are disputed, Moulding accuses Richmond of stonewalling both his office and the outside investigators and instructing his subordinates also not to cooperate.

Advertisement

“A county sheriff ordering deputies not to cooperate with an inquiry into a deputy’s use of force represents a fundamental lapse in judgment and raised serious concerns regarding the Sheriff’s honesty, candor and ethics as a law enforcement official,” Moulding wrote.

He scheduled a meeting that Richmond did not attend and then placed him on the county’s Brady-Giglio list. In an emailed statement, Moulding called the entire matter “unfortunate.”

“Frankly, I am shocked that instead of attempting to address this matter with my office cooperatively, the Sheriff instead decided to stonewall an investigation, stonewall the Brady-Giglio investigation, and then take this matter to court instead of sitting down and addressing the matter like an adult and an elected official,” he said.

In a letter, Moulding warned Richmond that he would no longer be called as a law enforcement witness and advised him to limit his involvement with criminal investigations, as “your engagement in such activities could likely negatively impact the outcomes in court.”

Judge disagrees with sheriff’s placement on list

After Moulding denied Richmond’s request for reconsideration, Richmond filed suit. In February 2025, Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled Richmond should be removed from the list.

Advertisement

Farrell’s order criticized both parties, finding that Moulding had failed to comply with some procedural elements of the law but that Richmond could have avoided the whole situation with “basic and professional” responses to Moulding’s emails. Nonetheless, he found Richmond’s actions did not demonstrate dishonesty or deceit that would justify placement on a Brady list.

“This is not a case in which an officer lied to a court, was convicted of a crime, manufactured or destroyed evidence, or committed some other act that would serve as the basis for impeachment in any criminal case,” Farrell wrote. “Game-playing the county attorney is not the standard of professionalism that Iowans expect of our elected county sheriffs,” he added, but does not constitute grounds for a Brady-Giglio listing.

Prosecutor appeals, argues law is unconstitutional

In his appeal, Moulding does not address Farrell’s factual findings, instead asking the court only to decide whether the law is constitutional.

“The most glaring constitutional defect in (the 2024 law) is that it impedes a criminal Defendant’s substantive and procedural due processes of law, and right to a fair trial,” the appeal says. “These fundamental rights constitute the bedrock raisons d’être for the entire body of Brady-Giglio jurisprudence in the first place.”

Iowa appears to be the only state with a law allowing officers to sue to be removed from a Brad-Giglio list, but Moulding cites a recent federal lawsuit where a judge rejected a South Dakota officer’s attempt to get removed from a list, finding the request “in essence, asks this Court to require a State’s Attorney to violate the constitution.” He further argues that the law violates the constitutional separation of powers and is “so poorly drafted as to be unenforceable and void for vagueness.”

Advertisement

Sheriff’s attorney says single lapse of judgment is not grounds for listing

Gribble, Richmond’s attorney, argued in his Supreme Court brief that the law is constitutional and that the sheriff’s actions fall well short of Brady-Giglio standards.

“Under (the 2024 law), placement on the Brady-Giglio list results not from a single lapse of judgment but rather from repeated, sustained, intentional and egregious acts over a period of time,” he wrote. “Thus, while a singular act of bad judgement may undermine a police officer’s credibility in a particular case, placement on the Brady-Giglio list places a permanent and unreviewable scarlet letter on the officer that he/she is unlikely to be able to ever overcome.”

He also suggests that a court order removing an officer from a list “does not in any way alter the prosecuting attorney’s duty to provide exculpatory evidence in all cases.” In an interview, he argued there should be a legal distinction between prosecutors disclosing concerns about an officer’s conduct in the case in which it occurred, and doing so in every future case involving them.

“To me, that’s what Brady-Giglio is for, not for occasional or first-time wrongs, even if established of a police officer, but those that have a history of that sort of thing,” he said.

The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for arguments in the case.

Advertisement

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.



Source link

Continue Reading

Iowa

Univ. of Iowa students practice life-saving skills through realistic medical simulations

Published

on

Univ. of Iowa students practice life-saving skills through realistic medical simulations


IOWA CITY, Iowa (KCRG) – Some students at the University of Iowa are getting hands-on medical experience before the spring semester officially begins — and they’re doing it inside a mobile simulation lab.

Wednesday, Simulation in Motion-Iowa (SIM-IA) brought its high-tech training truck to the university’s main hospital campus during what’s known as “transitions week,” just days before physician assistant students head out on clinical rotations.

Instead of practicing on classmates, students worked through simulated emergency scenarios using lifelike mannequins designed to closely mimic real patients. The mannequins can breathe, blink, sweat, and even go into cardiac arrest — giving students a realistic first taste of what they’ll soon face in hospitals and clinics.

“So they have pulses like you and I, they have lung sounds, breath tones, so they get to practice their patient assessments — their head-to-toes, what they think is wrong with that patient, determine what treatments they’re going to offer and do,” said Lisa Lenz, a Simulation in Motion-Iowa instructor.

Advertisement

Lenz controls the mannequins’ movements and symptoms behind the scenes, adjusting each scenario based on how students respond in real time.

“We can kind of assess and watch and make sure they’re doing the skills that we would expect them to do, we then get to change and flow through our scenario,” Lenz said. “So we start out with a healthy patient, maybe something like chest pains and continue through states of either progression or decline.”

Faculty members say the goal is to help students bridge the gap between classroom learning and real patient care — especially with clinical rotations beginning soon.

“This is now putting book work to the clinical practice,” said Jeremy Nelson, a clinical assistant professor in the university’s Department of PA Studies and Services. “We’re getting them ready to go out to various scenarios.”

Nelson says repetition is key, especially since some medical emergencies are rare while others are unpredictable.

Advertisement

“They may see them 10 times on rotation, they may see them once,” Nelson said. “This gives them that ‘first touch’ so when they do see it they have a better chance of learning more and being engaged and practicing.”

The spring semester at the University of Iowa officially begins January 20 for those students. Faculty say experiences like this help boost confidence and reduce anxiety before students ever step into a real emergency situation.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending