Rick Stewart
LibertarianQ1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?
Watershed coops are the obvious answer. Everyone who owns a shred of land in one of Iowa’s watersheds is automatically a member. The Iowa Legislator gives each watershed a simple responsibility - all the water coming out of the watershed has to be at least as clean as all the water coming into the watershed. If annual goals are not met the coop is fined six mid-seven figures.
Keywords: watersheds coops water
Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?
Science funding should never be federal so I would eliminate all of it over a ten year period, cutting it by a flat 10% of the original amount every year so it reaches zero in ten years. I’m not picking on science funding, I would do exactly the same thing for every other federal dollar Iowa receives, Medicare being the elephant in the room. Simultaneously the tax money Iowa sends to Washington every year would be reduced by exactly the same amount, leaving the choice of how to spend those tax dollars to Iowa, not Washington.
In other words, the decision as to how much science Iowa taxpayers want to fund should be made in Iowa.
Keywords: state federal funding
Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as policy making related to public health, energy, agriculture, and environmental regulation. What role, if any, should scientific evidence and expert input play in your policymaking process, and how would you evaluate competing or uncertain scientific claims when making policy decisions? What role, if any, should that process play when scientific consensus and public opinion diverge?
Courageous politicians value evidence, not opinions. People forget half of eligible voters have below average intelligence - their opinions should be taken into consideration, but they shouldn’t carry half the weight in decision making. I will grant the average intelligence of a degreed scientist is higher than the average intelligence of a high school dropout, I will also point out 50% of degreed scientists are below average scientists. I find it amazing every scientist is not a Libertarian (the only American political party with principles), I blame that on lazy thinking by lazy scientists. There is a tendency for smart people, like scientists, to think they know everything about everything else, after all, they’re smart! Unfortunately, this produces large amounts of ignorance. Should a scientist who hasn’t mastered the fundamentals of economics and public choice theory even be allowed to vote? I see no convincing evidence government should have any role in public health beyond sanitation and vaccination/quarantines, and no role at all in energy and agriculture. Environmental protection is another story - it’s an externality, someone, probably the government, has to do something to ensure the cost of negative externalities is incorporated into market prices. Now - should government fund basic scientific research? I think evidence is mixed, but many economists say yes. There may even be a consensus. That doesn’t mean it’s true, however, and I think a convincing answer of ‘no’ is put forward in the paper at this link. https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-should-not-fund-research
Keywords: basic research libertarian