Bill limiting state funds for libraries in national, state library associations advances
(Photo via Getty Images)
The House Education Committee voted 14-9 Tuesday to advance legislation removing state funding from public libraries that pay dues to state or national nonprofit organizations involved in government lobbying, like the Iowa Library Association or American Library Association.
The legislation, House File 284, proposes changes for eligibility to receive Enrich Iowa funds through the State Library of Iowa, restricting access for libraries that are members of nonprofit organizations promoting 'federal and state legislation related to libraries and engages in advocacy efforts' at local, state and federal levels.
Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, said if there's a good thing that has come out of discussions on the legislation, it is the affirmation that 'Iowans really love their libraries.' In the subcommittee meeting on the legislation, opponents to the legislation said the proposal would strip funding from libraries that participate in state and national associations that provide assistance to public libraries like continuing education for staff or aid in implementing new policies or programs.
The legislation specifically targets organizations like the American Library Association, or ALA, which some supporters of the legislation have said have a 'Marxist' agenda. But Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny, highlighted grants from the ALA received by Iowa libraries in recent years like the Atlantic Public Library receiving grants to help improve services for adults and teenagers with developmental disabilities and the Marion Public Library receiving disaster relief funds following the 2020 derecho as evidence that participation in these organizations provides a material, non-political benefit to libraries.
'This does not sound like a Marxist agenda to me,' Matson said. '… This bill is another in a line of fearmongering that simply isn't true. It is a false flag, and it assumes worst intentions.'
But Rep. Helena Hayes, R-New Sharon, said the measure would not prevent public libraries from seeking and receiving grants. Hayes said at the subcommittee meeting that listeners could determine for themselves if the ALA has a 'Marxist agenda,' reading statements from the national organization and the affiliated Iowa Library Association, that state there are 'institutionalized inequalities based on race' and supporting educational efforts that focus on issues like 'unconscious bias' and 'microaggressions.'
She also said the measure was focused on the ALA and the ILA following statements regarding the Iowa law related to the ban on school books containing descriptions or depictions of sex acts and instruction related to gender identity and sexual orientation. The organizations stated they support 'freedom to access information without censorship or undue restrictions,' she said.
'Basically: any book, any age, any time,' Hayes said of the library association's stance on book restrictions. 'That's difficult for a lot of parents to swallow. There's perhaps a lack of common sense in that, and it's pretty clear to all of us that there's been a lack of response across the state of Iowa.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
MSNBC Host Cracks Up Over Trump Email About Parade: 'Sorry, That's A Funny Sentence'
MSNBC host Chris Hayes couldn't contain his laughter on air Friday while reading a fundraising email from President Donald Trump. The email asked for donations for his Saturday military parade, which, as it turns out, most Americans aren't that eager to fund. 'Donald Trump is holding a North Korean-style military parade, Soviet-style military parade through the nation's capital, something that we just don't do as a country,' said Hayes. 'The last one we did was after the first Persian Gulf War, which was celebrating the end of a war.' He continued, 'We don't have that here. It just so happens to fall on his 79th birthday. He's even fundraising from it, if you could believe it — well, you can, of course — sending out this email with the subject line, quote, 'Please help me before my military parade!'' Hayes broke into laughter reading that last line aloud, as a screenshot of the email was displayed onscreen. He quickly composed himself and continued his coverage on the impending Washington, D.C., event. 'I'm sorry, that's a funny sentence,' said Hayes. ''My military parade.'' Trump has never served in the armed forces and reportedly avoided the Vietnam War draft with a diagnosis of bone spurs in his feet. The daughter of the doctor who provided the diagnosis later said he had done so as a favor to his landlord — Trump's father, Fred Trump. The parade and surrounding festivities are meant to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, though the event notably also falls on Trump's 79th birthday. It is set to feature nearly 7,000 troops, various ground vehicles and fighter jet flyovers in a display that could cost up to $45 million. It will coincide with expected protests across the country, which retired military officials believe could be a dangerous combination. 'Donald Trump has already promised, quote, 'very heavy force' against anyone who would choose to protest his special day,' Hayes said Friday. 'He didn't direct this at rioters or looters or people that broke the law, you know. He said protesters would be met with very heavy force.' The president issued that warning Tuesday from the Oval Office. Former U.S. Military Officials Fear 'Tiananmen Square Moment' At Trump Parade: Report 'Daily Show' Audience Erupts Over Desi Lydic's Trump Parade Realization New Poll Reveals How Most Americans — Including MAGA — Really Feel About Trump's Military Parade
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour's insane economic policies are taking us back to the dark 1970s
We have been here before. The crisis that the country faces may be catastrophic but it is not unprecedented. Anyone old enough to remember life in 1970s Britain will recall an almost universal sense of utter hopelessness and resignation. Most people (but not all, as it turned out) seemed to be beyond any thought of constructive rebellion against apparently invincible forces. Decline was not just an alarming possibility: it was inevitable and crushing in its finality. The everyday business of life was not simply encumbered by incompetence and infuriatingly poor services as it is now. It was made virtually impossible: the lights were going out on a regular basis along with facilities like heating and cooking, which relied on electricity; the train service on which commuters depended (no working from home back then) was repeatedly withdrawn sometimes without warning; and essential supplies were obstructed, which caused desperate shortages of goods. It was often observed, with characteristic British irony, that it was like living through the war – only this time the enemy wasn't foreign. You know what happened next. The Thatcher Government broke the death grip of trade union power which had crippled the British economy, not just by new legislation that directly limited the unions' coercive practices but by dismantling the nationalised industries over which they had a monopolistic hold. Along with union hegemony, the suffocating grip of Left-wing councils was also brought down. I recall this particularly vividly because my family's life in the London Borough of Haringey had been turned into a class war nightmare by a vindictive Labour council whose rising star Jeremy Corbyn obligingly closed down the schools in solidarity with the striking caretakers. But the miraculous revolution did not happen overnight. The first attempt to beat the coal miners who were critical to this struggle failed because the deprivation that their prolonged strike caused was too great for the population to bear. It took the Government a year of stockpiling coal in a carefully planned strategy to survive another winter of strikes before the breakthrough came. There was no instant revelation on the political front either. The presentation of what soon became known as Thatcherism, with its transformational view of how wealth was created and distributed ('growing the pie' as opposed to simply dividing up the existing one into more equal pieces), was a major philosophical undertaking. This was no mere electoral strategy. It was a historic shift of paradigmatic social thinking: a systematic argument with the Marxist analysis that had dominated political discourse in its harder or softer forms for a century. It took philosophical thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Nobel Prize-winning economic theorists like Milton Friedman, translated into practical action by an inspirational political adviser like Sir Keith Joseph, to create solutions that no one could have foreseen a generation before. Yes children, that was how it happened all those years ago that Britain emerged from what looked like an inevitable descent into domestic failure and global insignificance. But how can this be relevant now? After all, we have learnt the essential lessons about how to create economic growth and encourage the spread of it through society – haven't we? We know that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish if actual wealth is to increase, and that the state can only spend real money that markets produce if it is not to bankrupt the nation with debt. And, what is more, if the state inhibits or depresses the ability of private entrepreneurialism to flourish, there will be no possibility of it improving living conditions for anyone. Surely we know all this – don't we? The awareness of it must be embedded in the consciousness of every serious politician who aspires to power. (The unserious ones who are so ideologically purblind that they will not accept it are, I genuinely believe, unlikely ever to be more than a disruptive nuisance.) Blairite Labour had to demonstrate that it had been converted to the new truth before it could hope to be re-elected. It staged a ceremonial renunciation of the old dogma with the removal of its commitment to state ownership of the means of production and declared itself enthusiastically committed to capitalist free markets – so long as they were accompanied by 'social fairness' (which was, unfortunately, redistribution by another name). After all that, here we are. A new Old Labour Government is now restoring the suffocating employment rights which make the dynamism and flexibility of entrepreneurial business impossibly difficult. It promises enormous amounts of money that don't exist and cannot be produced, because of the restrictions it has put on private enterprise, to public services like the NHS designed on the old monopolistic model. It caves in, without a struggle, to the demands of every public sector union for all the world as if the 1980s had never happened. What is at the heart of this? To understand such retrograde thinking, you must listen to the rhetoric in which it is expressed. The Prime Minister and his hapless Chancellor speak of 'working people' as a homogeneous class whose communities are as conformist and predictable in their attitudes and loyalties as they were 50 years or more ago. Their lives are seen as inextricably bound up (and limited by) a single local industry which must be renewed or replaced by another industry or by a technological revolution into which the population can be inducted. There appears to be no understanding that what used to be a solid, passive working class which wanted nothing more than safe jobs for itself and its progeny was awakened by the 1980s to the possibility of social mobility. The working people to whom Labour is offering its expensive beneficence may now quite possibly be inclined to start up their own ventures and move on. Pouring government money into regional capital projects will mean taxing their new enterprises into the grave. The revelation of the Blair years was that there were lots of working (class) people who did not welcome the traditional, patronising Labour message. They may still be a minority, these brave individualists, but they are the future and they will not be ignored. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Iowa House Republicans, candidates describe Gov. Reynolds pipeline veto as 'betrayal'
DES MOINES, Iowa — It's been just over 24 hours since Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds announced she was vetoing a bill that would add restrictions around building pipelines in the state; but the gloves are already off for some elected lawmakers in the party. 'It's a betrayal of the Republican party platform, it's a betrayal of those landowners who fought for four years and she didn't even speak with them until recently,' said State Representative Steve Holt (R) District 12 from Denison, when discussing if Reynolds had talked with his constituents. 'So it was very, very unfortunate. Puts us in a very bad position and it, I think, it will forever tarnish her legacy.' House Republicans won't mince words with how they feel with the news about the veto. Rep. Holt said that he talked with Governor Reynolds after the session ended, urging her to sign the legislation, promising a bill to tighten language she thought was a concern. CIWW enacts ban on lawn watering as nitrate levels climb The author of the bill shared his colleague's concerns about the reason why the governor did not sign the legislation. 'To let Iowans down the way she has, it just, it kind of breaks your heart to see that,' said State Representative Charley Thomson (R) District 58 from Charles City when responding to Reynolds' concerns about insurance and voluntary easements. 'It's not credible for her to say that. And we all kind of get it, wink, wink, nod, nod, it's not about insurance, it's about sum.' Thomson outlined to WHO 13 News why he believes there needs to be insurance liabilities on a pipeline company, and protections for landowners. He compared it to an Iowan not being able to drive legally on the road without auto insurance. The pair do not have high hopes for a special session to be called, but they won't completely rule it out. Two gubernatorial candidates both say that this decision from Governor Reynolds was something they were disappointed in, but not surprised. 'I was not surprised by this. I had predicted that this would happen. And quite honestly, I'm deeply disappointed. I think this is a, it's a slap in the face at our property owners, who their only gripe, if you will, is that they just don't want to sell their property to someone for that other person's financial gain,' said State Representative Eddie Andrews, (R) District 43, candidate for governor. 'I was not surprised. Um, the timing is always a little bit of a surprise because you never know when it's going to happen. But I had a conversation with Governor Reynolds back in the early part of '23 when I first got to the statehouse. And, you know, some of the language in her statement was pretty similar to what, what her response was back then,' said Brad Sherman, a former state representative and candidate for governor. Both Sherman and Andrews told WHO 13 News that if they are elected they will sign a bill that bans the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines outright. Iowa News: Iowa House Republicans, candidates describe Gov. Reynolds pipeline veto as 'betrayal' WHO 13 Farm Report: Thursday, June 12th Deal's Orchard is a favorite Jefferson destination Des Moines man identified as body found in Newton home during search warrant execution Art scene thriving in Jefferson with more murals planned for downtown Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
