Telegraph Herald. May 17, 2013.

Top outrage? Take your pick

It's been quite a week for President Obama and his administration. In the span of just a few days, the White House has had to address these outrageous (and, in at least one case, criminal) acts:

— The Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party and similar organizations for extra scrutiny (and hassle) when considering their applications for tax-exempt status. Despite initial statements to the contrary, senior leadership at the IRS knew about this treatment of groups that, shall we say, hold opinions contrary to those of Obama.

— The Justice Department, investigating information leaks that resulted in a major story concerning terrorism, secretly subpoenaed access to telephone records of reporters and editors of the nation's largest news organization, The Associated Press.

— The changing accounts by Obama and members of his team regarding the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, last Sept. 11. It is becoming apparent that the CIA initially (and accurately) informed the White House that it was a terrorist attack, but Americans were at first told that the attack, which killed four Americans, was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video. Turns out that the "talking points" were revised to remove or alter facts. For his part, the president, seeking re-election at the time, equivocated on whether it was a terrorist attack.

Of those three controversies, which is the most serious? Which is the most egregious?

Using the power and authority of the federal government to harass and financially handicap political opponents?

Abusing power and, in the process, treading on the First Amendment?

Knowingly making inaccurate statements — outside the Beltway, we call it lying — regarding an attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans and injured nearly a dozen?

Take your pick. You can't be wrong. Any one of these issues is serious, and a major blow to Obama's credibility.

When he campaigned and first won election in 2008, Obama promised to have the most transparent presidential administration ever. The American people would know what was going on. How has that worked out? Secrets, lies and abuse of power. For those of us old enough to remember, all this carries a whiff of the Nixon administration. It's a bit of deja vu.

It was too late for Nixon, but it is not too late for Obama to straighten out these messes. However, it will require firmer and more decisive action and greater candor than Obama has demonstrated thus far.

___

The Des Moines Register. May 19, 2013.

Dental Board's actions protect dentists, not the public

Iowa lawmakers often assure their constituents that creating jobs is a top priority. They praise small businesses, offer tax incentives to large ones and denounce "burdensome" government regulations. Yet, the actions of the Iowa Legislature and some of Iowa's job-licensing boards prevent Iowans from opening businesses and finding work.

It is time for elected officials to take a comprehensive look at the 34 licensing boards that regulate everyone from barbers and pharmacists to optometrists, hair braiders and nail technicians. Why does someone need government permission to be an interior designer or sign language interpreter? Is it really necessary for cosmetologists to have 2,100 hours of training before they can get a license? That is twice what some states require. Emergency medical technicians are required to have about one-tenth as many hours of training.

Some licensing boards are obviously important to protect public safety by ensuring workers have certain minimum education and training. Yet the licensing boards, often composed largely of industry insiders, may limit competition and protect the economic interests of the workers they are supposed to regulate.

Worse, lawmakers have helped these boards do exactly that. Among the most egregious examples of this: In 2009, the Legislature approved an amendment to Iowa law that ensured only dentists can provide teeth-whitening services.

That's right. You can whiten your own teeth with a mouth tray and gel purchased at a drugstore. You can go online and buy exactly the same products dentists use in their offices. And if you lived in most other states, you could set up a business offering this cosmetic procedure to the public — and many people have.

But not in Iowa.

Iowa is one of only five states where there are laws that prohibit non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services, according to a report by the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties interest group in Washington, D.C. Only a licensed dentist can whiten anyone's teeth "at any geographic location," according to Iowa law. Melanie Johnson, executive director of the Iowa Dental Board, said a dental assistant can do the whitening under the supervision of a dentist. Of course, that guarantees the dentist is paid for the service and a dental hygienist can't open his or her own business, even though this worker was trained in whitening if she attended Des Moines Area Community College.

The Iowa Dental Board, a majority of whose members are dentists, regulates dental professionals and pushed for this change in law. Even before the change, the board had been interpreting an old law to justify investigating teeth-whitening businesses. The board sent those businesses letters notifying them that they were "not licensed in the State of Iowa to practice dentistry" and that they should "cease and desist from this illegal activity."

The board has sent more than 20 such letters to new and expanding businesses in Iowa — essentially scaring them into closing.

One man who had rented space in a Cedar Rapids mall told investigators he had consulted an attorney, purchased a franchise and was just getting started in his new endeavor. A business owner in Ankeny thought she was abiding by the law and asked investigators what she was supposed to do about the remaining clients she had scheduled that day. Another was apparently so rattled by the investigators he said he was closing immediately, reports from the investigators said.

Teeth-whitening is hardly dangerous. It poses about as much risk as many other cosmetic services consumers perform on themselves — from bleaching their upper lips to chemically removing leg hair. The most common side effects are irritated gums and increased tooth sensitivity. But federal agencies don't even caution consumers about that.

The Iowa Dental Board investigations into teeth-whitening businesses were not prompted by consumers who had been injured. Almost all resulted from dentists tattling on their competitors.

Limiting who can whiten teeth isn't about protecting public health. It's about ensuring only dentists capture revenue from the lucrative service. (Members of the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry collect an average of $25,000 annually for whitening teeth, according to the Institute for Justice.)

So in 2008, the Iowa Dental Board adopted a position statement advocating that only dentists should be able to whiten teeth. The board voted to pursue a change in Iowa law to cement that in place. Iowa law had previously defined the practice of dentistry in the same way most Iowans would define it: Skilled and educated people whose work included examining, diagnosing, treating and correcting problems with teeth, gums and the jaw. Now, the practice of dentistry also includes whitening teeth.

Dentists should be embarrassed. These people spent years in school studying everything from oral cancer to anesthesia to pharmacology. They are doctors. Redefining dentistry in Iowa so no one else can bleach teeth for cosmetic purposes diminishes the seriousness of the dental profession.

In recent years, the American Dental Association pushed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate tooth-whitening products, a move that would probably limit public access to them. But the FDA didn't bite.

Of course, that is to be expected from organizations protecting the interests of dentists. But one doesn't expect it from an Iowa licensing board that is supposed to exist to look out for consumers. But apparently this is how things work in Iowa.

___

Globe Gazette. May 19, 2013.

Sculptures are unique attraction, including the dice

We have mentioned on this page our appreciation for the sculptures placed throughout downtown Mason City.

The 26 works of art reflect nicely on Mason City's arts heritage and together are a unique attraction — a very nice addition to an already nice and ever-improving downtown.

So we were taken aback when some people voiced their displeasure with the sculpture of three red dice in Central Park. Positioned side by side, it is the creation of Craig Snyder of Plymouth, Minn.

Is it obscene? No. Suggestive? Not in the least. Profane? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nothing like that at all.

It was the suggestion that the dice related to gambling that bothered some people enough to bring them to the Mason City Park Board to complain.

Mary Hammel, a volunteer with Main Street Mason City, said she didn't think the dice represented the right values for a downtown park.

"We don't have a casino because this community voted down gambling," she said. "The dice are inappropriate for Central Park."

Kitty Clasing, a former Park Board member, also thinks the artwork inappropriate for a park.

Park Board members Ray Shimak and Don Nelson said they received complaints.

To which we reply, what are we missing here?

Robin Anderson, who heads the Chamber of Commerce and the private organization that oversees the sculpture program, said it's ironic that people object to the dice as not representing family values.

"The sculptor got the idea for this from playing Yahtzee with his family," she told the Park Board.

Playing a game! With his family! Not shooting craps in a casino!

Besides, while we're not the biggest customers of casinos, last we knew you throw two dice to play craps, not three.

Yahtzee, a grand old board game, takes five. Monopoly takes two as do some others, but we certainly don't think of them as gambling — unless you use real money.

And speaking of real money, the Diamond Jo Worth Casino, which landed in Northwood after Cerro Gordo County residents said no to casino gambling, is distributing plenty of it to schools and other nonprofits through its charitable arm, especially in Worth County. Hindsight's 20-20, but we imagine a good number of folks would like to have more of those dollars flowing into Cerro Gordo County.

But back to the sculpture. Clasing and others said it was inadvertently placed in the perennial garden in the park, which she thought could have been avoided. Clasing is well-known for her beautification efforts in the community and we agree with her on the location.

She has talked with Anderson about the placement and both are confident something can be worked out.

That's good. Let's move the sculpture so it's not in the beautiful flower bed. But there's plenty of room for it elsewhere in Central Park.

This whole thing kind of reminds us of "The Music Man" when Professor Harold Hill raises the red flag about a pool table in River City.

"Ya got trouble right here in River City," he sang out.

Well, there was no trouble then and there's no trouble now with the red dice. Like the beautiful flowers, the dice sculpture and the others make for a more inviting downtown.

We definitely don't see any trouble with that.

___

Sioux City Journal. May 19, 2013.

It's time for commitment to completion of Highway 20

Just eight months ago, we wrote in this space of our "growing sense of optimism" about Highway 20. An end to the four-lane project was, we said, "in sight."

Our September Opinion was based on the hope of enough funding to complete the final 40 miles of construction work between Moville and Early by perhaps as early as 2018.

Today, well, let's just say we're less ebullient. Once again, the project appears to have moved from the fast lane to the slow lane.

Why do we say this?

First, we were disappointed the Department of Transportation decided in November not to give Highway 20 some of the $70.7 million in extra money the DOT freed up in this year's budget through a combination of savings, additional federal revenue and carry-over dollars from last year.

Second, the Iowa Department of Transportation's new five-year plan falls far short of delivering the money necessary to finish the job. A total of $118.3 million is planned for Highway 20 work in Woodbury County between 2014 and 2018. This plan would leave the stretch of Highway 20 between Correctionville and Early unfinished.

Also, we were hopeful for an increase in the state gas tax during this year's legislative session. Through a gas tax hike, more money conceivably could be directed to Highway 20, thus speeding up the work, but prospects for such an increase appear dim as we write this.

Finally, State Senators Rick Bertrand, R-Sioux City, and Bill Anderson, R-Pierson, co-sponsored an amendment to include $25 million of additional revenue for Highway 20 in an infrastructure bill, funded largely by gambling profits, last month, but their amendment was defeated.

Despite the fact the bill appropriated money for a range of environmental and building projects across the state, Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, called the amendment a "terribly bad and very dangerous idea" because it would "put pork-barrel politics back in this Legislature."

What, Sen. McCoy, is "dangerous" about wanting to include money in an infrastructure bill for an important, long-overdue-for-completion road construction project?

Besides, we find it a little insulting for a lawmaker whose home county of Polk has received hundreds of millions of dollars in road construction money over the last 10 years to suggest $25 million for Highway 20 is "pork."

We aren't suggesting the Polk County road projects weren't important or necessary (Des Moines is, after all, the state capital and Iowa's largest city). We're simply reminding McCoy, like-minded legislators and DOT commissioners of the fact the four-lane widening of Highway 20 began more than 50 years ago and remains unfinished.

In a story about the new five-year plan written earlier this month, the Journal's Bret Hayworth said disappointed members of the U.S. 20 Corridor Association (the indefatigable organization dedicated to the completion of the four-lane project) are beginning to lose patience.

We don't blame them. We were hoping for more Highway 20 money in the new five-year DOT plan, too.

It appears everyone committed to this key western Iowa project will have to redouble efforts to give it the priority it deserves and needs for completion before the next five-year plan is released.

In co-sponsoring the amendment to the infrastructure bill for additional Highway 20 funding, Bertrand said: "It's time to fund it. Let's finish it."

Amen to that, senator.