CEDAR RAPIDS — It didn’t take long for the overall theme of Saturday’s 2nd District Republican candidate forum to become abundantly clear: Government is too big.

Republicans seeking the party's nomination for the 2nd Congressional District are (from left) Steve Rathje, Marianette Miller-Meeks and Christopher Reed. The three faced off in a forum Saturday hosted by Linn Area Pro-Life United and the Mount Mercy College Political Science Club. Karl Cassell (far right) moderated.

Republicans seeking the party's nomination for the 2nd Congressional District are (from left) Steve Rathje, Marianette Miller-Meeks and Christopher Reed. The three faced off in a forum Saturday hosted by Linn Area Pro-Life United and the Mount Mercy College Political Science Club. Karl Cassell (far right) moderated.

All three candidates vying to be the party’s nominee and face U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Mount Vernon, in November — Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Ottumwa, Steve Rathje of Cedar Rapids and Christopher Reed of Marion — were adamant that government would be best served if it would simply get out of the way of its citizens. Short of that, each had plans for dismantling programs such as the U.S. Department of Energy, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Education.

There were very few opportunities during the course of the forum for those attending to view specific ideological divides between the candidates.

All three called for more transparency and audits of the Federal Reserve, with Rathje calling the latter “the biggest joke ever perpetrated on the American people.”

All three cautioned that cap-and-trade legislation could unduly punish people in the Midwest, with Reed saying if elected he would push to rescind the bill if Democrats pass it this year.

None of the candidates believed the federal government should be involved in health care, although Miller-Meeks said the role of government should be overall transparency of the system, care for the needy and fraud prosecution.

All three also professed that they are solidly “pro-life,” with Rathje adding that he believed marriage should be “between one natural man and one natural woman” and that he “won’t accept abortion under any circumstances unless it is between the mother, and God and her doctor.”

On the subject of immigration, Miller-Meeks called for the existing legal system to be revamped so that wait times could be reduced. Rathje, while alluding to technological advances that could place a nuclear bomb in a suitcase, called for the a border fence and allowing entry to immigrants “who have something to offer.” Reed also called for stronger border security and said the U.S. Department of Labor should be allowed to set immigration caps by industry.

Throughout the forum, as they answered questions relating to agriculture, energy, health care reform, education and human rights, the candidates unabashedly listed specific issues where they felt the federal government was over-stepping its authority. When asked specifically what one or two federal programs or departments should be abolished, the candidates were quick with their answers.

Miller-Meeks: “One is the Department of Energy, which was established under [Pres. Jimmy] Carter to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. That’s been very successful, I think you all would agree. (laughter) But if you specifically want to talk about programs, then I have to mention programs which occurred during the tenure of a Republican president. As member of that party, we all take a little fault in that. That’s the Department of Homeland Security. Did we need a Department of Homeland Security? Did that … enlarge the bureaucracy? Did it make it more difficult for FEMA to engage people after natural disasters? And, then, also No Child Left Behind. All of us want accountability and standards. But we also that as parents we have a tremendous role in the education of our children. We also know that this increases the federal government’s role in the education system.”

Reed: “This is kind of like being at a buffet because there is so much to choose from or go with. One of the first ones I would talk about would be the National Education Association (the national teachers union). I don’t think that any bureaucrat in Washington has any idea what is best for students in Iowa. … I think education belongs at the state level — more specifically, it belongs at the duly-elected school board level where the parents have direct control. Nobody in this country knows better what is best for the children than the parents of those children. … I’m a big advocate of the homeschooling system, and, if it was up to the NEA, homeschools would go away. That is something, as a person going to Congress, that I would stand up say, ‘Get the NEA out of the way. Let these parents be parents.’ As far as other programs, we just need to look as a collective society and say how much more we are going to allow our government to over-reach. … We need to send people to Washington who are going to stand up and say that they are drawing the line in the sand. There’s a 10th Amendment for a reason, there’s a Constitution for a reason.”

Rathje: “Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution clearly defines what the government’s responsibilities and roles are. Period. Anything that doesn’t fall within that, as far as I’m concerned, is unconstitutional. For example, if we have a defense bill, and we are running that defense bill through Congress, and everything from soup to nuts is added onto that defense bill, as far as I’m concerned that is unconstitutional because it has nothing to do with defense. If we are doing the same thing from an educational point of view — I don’t want education having anything what so ever to do with the federal government. … I want education back in the states. I want education back in the family. I want education back in the churches. I want education back in the schools.”

The only portion of the forum where any fissure could be detected was in regard to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a policy that has effectively prevented openly gay individuals from serving in the military.

Rathje said flatly that he supports the policy. Miller-Meeks and Reed, both military veterans, took a more measured approach, with Reed telling those in the audience that gay men and women are already serving.

Miller-Meeks, who is a former Army nurse and who makes her living as an ophthalmologist, added that while serving alongside homosexuals may make some uncomfortable and that she “as a physician, is concerned about the blood supply,” the final decision should be left in the hands of those who wish to serve and military leaders — not Congress, the judiciary or the president.

The Iowa Independent has reached out to Miller-Meeks to clarify her concerns about the blood supply in regards to military service for openly gay men and women. As of publication, she could not be reached for comment.

Miller-Meeks unsuccessfully ran against Loebsack in 2008 after winning a three-person Republican primary. Both Rathje and Reed faced off in 2008 for the Republican nomination to take on Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. Reed was victorious in the primary but lost the general election.