U.S. Sen. Ernst is cutting what I give thanks for.

My follow-up substack provides a bi-partisan critique

Gratitude is due to Bleeding Heartland and Henry Jay Karp for their critical reporting. By documenting Senator Ernst's proposed cuts, they've performed an essential public service: illuminating policy details that might otherwise remain obscured.

I served in state government for 20 years and interacted with local, state, and federal governments for 4 decades. Responsible governance demands nuanced evaluation, not wholesale destruction. If Senator Ernst had conducted a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of federal program effectiveness—identifying what genuinely works and what requires strategic improvement—her proposed cuts might have been viewed as a good-faith effort at fiscal stewardship.

In contrast to the use of available sophisticated analytic tools, our Senator used a sledgehammer. Senator Ernst's proposed cuts systematically dismantle America's social safety net, targeting communities often celebrated in her political rhetoric. These cuts represent more than budget reduction—they are an assault on collective public investment and shared societal well-being.

The cuts strike at the heart of critical public services:

Veterans Healthcare

• Betrays "support our troops" rhetoric (Ernst’s criticism of federal bureaucrats omits awareness that about 30% of federal employees are in the military)

• Threatens medical care for those who've served

• Renders' "Thank you for your service" meaningless

Agricultural Support

• Devastates small and mid-sized family farms

• Destabilizes rural economic ecosystems

• Increases financial vulnerability for agricultural communities

Health Services and Support for Children, Families and Our Most

Vulnerable Iowans

• Eliminates healthcare access for low-income families

• Strips coverage from vulnerable Americans

• Directly impacts children's medical care

Institutional Infrastructure

• Undermines public education funding

• Reduces pandemic and disease research

• Compromise food and medication safety

• Weakens aviation and weather safety protocols

True government reform isn't about indiscriminate slashing but about precision: understanding which programs deliver meaningful outcomes for citizens and which need strategic redesign. A thoughtful approach would involve:

• Comprehensive program performance analysis

• Transparent metrics for effectiveness

• Collaborative improvement strategies

• Preservation of core services that demonstrably benefit communities

By consistently articulating both critique and constructive alternatives across multiple legislative sessions, a leader could build credibility. Instead, Ernst’s cuts appear ideologically driven rather than rooted in careful governance—a scorched-earth approach that risks dismantling critical infrastructure without offering viable alternatives.

The most effective policymakers are those who can simultaneously critique and strengthen public institutions, not those who seek to dismantle them. The proposed cuts disproportionately harm our least secure populations, eroding community resilience and prioritizing short-term fiscal goals over long-term societal health.

Iowans have two critical paths:

The cuts reveal a stark reality: some political slogans sound good until they directly impact real people's lives. 1) Those who supported Trump can evaluate whether these cuts match their expectations. 2) Those who opposed Trump can articulate how these cuts harm families, communities, and Iowa's future.