LETTERS: My experience at the Iowa Capital

To the editor:

Feb. 21, 2023 marked my first-ever trip to Des Moines to attend a rally at the capital. I’m not proud that this was my first rally since I am at retirement age. This is a process I could have and should have been involved in much earlier in my life.

This event was held regarding the proposed carbon capture pipeline. This same day also hosted a rally of Mothers for Responsible Gun Laws. The following day, there was a Second Amendment rally.

My visit to the capital allowed me an opportunity to visit one-on-one with three northwest Iowa legislators and hear first person remarks from other legislators delivered to a crowd of approximately 300 people. What did I learn from my first capital experience?

#1. Legislators do appreciate and welcome our involvement, opinions and ideas.

#2. One issue is no less and no more important than others. What defines an issue is how it affects us individually.

How did I approach the CO2 rally and what was my take away?

My wife and I are fortunate to own O’Brien county farmland that was homesteaded by my great-grandparents. How would my great-grandfather approach the CO2 issue? I think he would be less concerned about the “science” of CO2 than he would, as a civil war veteran, about the liberties that have been abraded in four generations and the cost of these losses of liberty.

For the record, in just one generation from my parents to us, we pay three times more in property tax than my parents paid in total price per acre for the same land.

My great-grandfather and my grandfather, other than fulfilling homestead rules, made the decisions of, on, for and about their land. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 changed much about agriculture.

Now a little about Mothers for Responsible Gun Laws. The mother I spoke with explained that they do not oppose guns. They advocate responsibility.

What does that have to do with CO2? It summarizes my take away from the capital. I advocate a responsible look at the science and financing of the pipeline.

The science of CO2 is much like the science of evolution, it discredits free thought and promotes division. As for financing, some funding comes from the Inflation Reduction Act under infrastructure. I fail to see how spending more saves more.

I have three generations before me who asked the same questions.

The CO2 pipeline debate, though a critical question of inalienable rights, is an example of rising inflation, rising taxes, rising regulations, rising number of federal and state agencies, rising number of federal and state employees to administer the above, rising threat of war, rising interest in eugenics, rising medical costs, and lowering standard of Western Civilization’s morality.

Chuck Virgil,

Sutherland