Bleeding Heartland - Populist Caucus

Iowans split on party lines as Congress approves three trade deals

desmoinesdem — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:46:44 GMT

The U.S. House and Senate approved trade agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea yesterday. All Iowa Republicans supported each of the three deals, while Iowa Democrats voted against them. Links to roll calls and statements from most of the lawmakers are after the jump.
President George W. Bush's administration negotiated all three trade agreements, but President Barack Obama just submitted the bills to Congress last week:

The three pacts have been held up for years over disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over the need to extend Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), a government program that provides job training, income support and health care assistance for workers displaced by free trade agreements. Passage of TAA is a requirement for the White House before they will send to Congress trade bills with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. But Republicans see the program as duplicative, expensive and ineffective.
The Senate passed a bill last month that was a compromise worked out between Senate Democrats and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.). It would extend TAA, but reform it to cut the length of income support by 13 weeks from 130 to 117 weeks, cut the price of the program and fully offset the cost with spending cuts elsewhere. It would also completely eliminate a health coverage tax credit for displaced workers by 2013. Additionally, the bill would require the Department of Labor provide Congress with information on how quickly a worker can find a job to try to find some metric for the program's success or failure.

The first deal to reach the House floor on October 12 was the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. It passed by 262 votes to 167. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted with the majority of their caucus for the bill. Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted against it, as did all but 31 House Democrats.

The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement passed with a larger 300 to 129 majority, and the United States-Korea Trade Agreement passed by 278 to 151. Iowa's representatives split on party lines again.

After the trade deals, the House approved the bill extending Trade Adjustment Assistance by 307 to 122. All of the House Democrats present voted for this bill. The GOP caucus was split roughly in half; Latham voted yes, while King voted no.

The Senate easily approved all three trade deals despite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's opposition. The South Korea agreement passed by the largest margin of 83 to 15. The Panama agreement passed by 77 to 22. The deal with Colombia was the most contentious, passing by 66 to 33. Senator Tom Harkin voted against all of the trade deals, while Senator Chuck Grassley supported them all.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that during House debate yesterday, Democrats sought to add the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act to the Colombian trade agreement. That amendment was rejected on a mostly party-line vote; Boswell, Braley and Loebsack supported adding the currency reform legislation to the deal, while Latham and King opposed the measure. I don't understand why House Republicans were so united against this bill. It passed the Senate on October 11 with support from 16 GOP Senators, including Grassley.

Obama hailed final passage of the trade agreements, claiming that they would help "American workers and businesses" by boosting exports. I share the sentiments of the advocacy group Public Citizen:

At a time of 9 percent unemployment and broad public opposition to more NAFTA-style trade agreements, it's a fairly shocking shift away from the president's job-creation message to suddenly call on Congress to pass three old Bush trade deals that the federal government's own studies say will increase the U.S. trade deficit.
The Korea FTA is the most economically significant since NAFTA, is projected to increase our trade deficit in key "jobs of the future" sectors such as computers, high-speed trains and solar, and result in the loss of an additional 159,000 U.S. jobs.
Congress should not even be considering a trade deal with Colombia, where scores of trade unionists, human rights defenders and Afro-Colombians are murdered or displaced from their lands every year and conditions have worsened since the administration signed off on an unenforceable "Labor Action Plan." At a time when America is trying to reduce the national debt, Congress should not be considering a trade deal with Panama, a notorious tax-haven where U.S. firms and wealthy individuals go to dodge their taxes.

On the other hand, some Democrats claimed the Obama administration won significant concessions in the agreements with Panama and South Korea:

Panama agreed to tax transparency steps, and South Korea agreed to what the U.S. side ultimately said was a more balanced agreement on autos.
The latter deal was so good that House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) argued several times that the deal would be a win for U.S. auto makers.
"This is a jobs bill," Levin said. "We have to be able to compete, and our auto industry can now compete."

Incidentally, Braley's office released a statement last week pointing out that Obama had spoken out against these trade agreements as a presidential candidate:

Braley and Populist Caucus Demand Answers from Obama on Trade Agreements
Call on Obama to Keep Campaign Promise and Oppose Free Trade Agreements
Washington, DC - Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Vice Chairs of the House Populist Caucus demanded answers from President Obama on the pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. In a letter to the President, the Populist Caucus leadership questioned why Obama changed his position on the pending free trade agreements. The letter points out many instances where Obama said he was opposed to the free trade agreements while he was campaigning for President.
"When it comes to trade, American workers prefer candidate Obama to President Obama." said Rep. Braley.
Congressman Braley serves as the Chairman of the Populist Caucus, which has advocated for proposals to create jobs in America. The Caucus has supported various job creation legislation including bills that would reinvest in American manufacturing, rebuild our aging infrastructure and encourage more products to be made in America.
A PDF copy of the Populist Caucus letter to Obama can be viewed at the following link: http://go.usa.gov/8Jz

The full text of the letter is also posted on Braley's Congressional website.

Senator Grassley's office released this statement on October 12 after the Senate approved the trade agreements:

"Exports have an important part to play in the economic recovery effort. Private sector employers need an international trade agenda that opens new doors to sell U.S. agricultural goods, manufactured products and services. These votes in the Senate are a very important step in the right direction, but they were delayed unnecessarily for years, and the rest of the world is moving ahead without us. We're more than capable of increasing exports, but we need the markets to do it. The President has said he wants to double exports. In order to reach his goal and to do everything possible to generate economic activity and opportunities in the United States, the administration needs to move forward on other job-generating trade initiatives without delay."

I haven't yet seen a comment from Harkin, but will update this post if one appears. UPDATE: Here it is.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement as the U.S. Senate considers trade agreements with Korea, Columbia and Panama.
"I took many aspects of these trade agreements and their impact on my home state of Iowa into account as I decided my vote on these proposals. I understand that there are important provisions that could reduce or eliminate obstacles to increase exports of Iowa agricultural products, manufactured goods and services offered by Iowa businesses. I listened intently to those who favor these agreements as the next step in expanding the export market for pork, beef, grain, agricultural and advanced manufacturing products. But after much consideration, I cannot support these trade agreements.
"History shows that the impact of various trade agreements is not experienced equally. Over the last 30 years, as America's trade deficit has surged to over $500 billion in 2010, our manufacturing sector has been decimated. Iowans have felt these effects as much as other areas of the industrial heartland. As manufacturing has declined, so have the good middle class jobs that form the backbone of Iowa's economy and the foundation of our middle class.
"Right now, rebuilding the American middle class should be Congress's number one priority. Unfortunately, when judged against this benchmark, these trade agreements do not measure up. For example, the International Trade Commission's report on the Korea agreement indicates that the net effect will be to increase our trade deficit with that country. Every dollar that we send abroad through a higher trade deficit is a lost opportunity to invest here at home in the products and industries we need to rebuild our economy and create good, middle class jobs.
"I firmly believe that American workers make the best products in the world, and I cannot support an agreement that would further endanger the American manufacturing industry and its workers. And I would also vehemently oppose any agreement that puts American workers in greater competition with countries like Columbia that have low wages, poor working conditions and a record of manifest disregard for workers' rights. Instead of participating in this race to the bottom, we must support policies that create a level playing field for American companies that play by the rules and treat their workers with dignity and respect.
"I have voted for Free Trade Agreements in the past, and I would welcome the opportunity to do so again in the future, provided that they are fair agreements that better protect the interests of U.S. workers and the American economy. Despite providing some important benefits, particularly in these tough economic times, these agreements do not meet that test."

I haven't seen a new statement from Braley since the House approved the trade deals, but his Populist Caucus letter from last week makes his position clear.

Statement from Loebsack:

"At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, Congress should be focusing on creating jobs and promoting recovery, not threatening to ship Iowans' jobs overseas. Since 1994, when NAFTA was implemented, Iowa has lost 21,560 manufacturing jobs, or nearly 10 percent of its manufacturing base. The jobs lost since NAFTA was signed account for 6.5 percent of the current unemployment rate in the state. We must use every tool in our arsenal to grow our economy and put Iowans back to work. NAFTA failed Iowa the first time and these NAFTA-style free trade agreements are a missed opportunity.
"Once again, the House leadership is pushing legislation that will send jobs overseas just a week after saying they would not allow a vote on legislation that could create 1.4 million jobs in America by stopping China from manipulating its currency and pushing American-made goods out of our own market. This is hypocritical and Iowa workers deserve better."

Statement from Boswell:

"This shaky trade legislation is not a true job-creator. The reality is these deals put tens of thousands of jobs on the line during an especially difficult time for our country. Let us not forget the effects of previous trade agreements on our communities - the most vivid example being Newton when thousands of workers lost their jobs after the Maytag plant closure. We cannot risk that again by allowing trade agreements that only benefit big corporations at the expense of our working class."

Statement from Latham:

LATHAM VOTES FOR IOWA JOB-CREATING FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS
U.S. HOUSE VOTE OPENS KEY WORLDWIDE MARKETS FOR IOWA PRODUCTS AND COMMODITIES
Washington, Oct 12 - Iowa Congressman Tom Latham stood with Iowa agriculture, manufacturers and employees with his vote in favor of free trade agreements between the U.S. and three other nations that will create thousands of Iowa jobs and open key international markets to Iowa products, services and agricultural commodities.
The agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea all received the approval of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday.
"Too many Americans wake up every day to grim economic news and deep anxiety about our job market," Congressman Latham said. "Approval of these free trade agreements will create jobs across our state and open new markets for Iowa products and commodities. This is an important step in the right direction toward putting America back to work."
Congressman Latham said the agreements will spark job growth in some of Iowa's most important economic sectors, including agriculture and manufacturing. The American Farm Bureau Federation expects the three agreements to increase direct agricultural exports from Iowa alone by $162.2 million per year. The expanded markets assured by the agreements could create as many as 1,460 agriculture-related jobs in Iowa, according to the Farm Bureau, increasing trade for Iowa soybeans, pork, corn, beef and processed food and fish.
"These agreements will create real jobs and opportunities across Iowa," Congressman Latham said. "We can't afford to let politics, partisanship or posturing stand in the way. This is good for Iowa, and it's good for the United States."
The U.S. economy stands to gain jobs in numerous sectors by leveling the playing field for American goods and services in foreign markets. The agreements will remove barriers that have traditionally made U.S. trade with the three nations more costly. For instance, the average South Korean tariff for U.S. exporters is more than four times the average tariff that Korean exporters face in the U.S. market.
The free trade agreements also will help the United States to stay competitive in a global economy that increasingly is becoming integrated.
Congressman Latham has been a strong supporter of the three free trade agreements. In June, he joined Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Steve King in a letter applauding Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad's support of the agreements, noting their critical importance to Iowa's economy and jobs market.

I will add King's statement to this post later; at this writing, that page is not coming up on his Congressional website.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee kept quiet about yesterday's votes on the trade deals, presumably because the Democratic caucus was divided on the issue. However, the DCCC quickly sent out a press release bashing King for opposing the bill to extend Trade Adjustment Assistance. Excerpt:

Despite the fact that the U.S. has lost 2.8 million jobs from outsourcing with China alone, Representative Steve King (IA-05) voted against extending Trade Adjustment Assistance that provides much needed retraining to workers and others who lost their jobs due to unfair trade practices. While this critical retraining passed with a bipartisan majority in the Senate, King continues to oppose it.
Republicans like Representative King did support protecting taxpayer funds for corporations that ship American jobs overseas but wants to penalize the Iowa families laid off as a result. The Trade Adjustment Assistance would provide job training and aid to 1,990 displaced workers in Iowa.
"Representative Steve King happily spends taxpayer money subsidizing companies that ship Iowa jobs overseas but opposes critical job retraining and income support for the workers laid off by unfair trade and outsourcing," said Jesse Ferguson of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Representative Steve King voted against Trade Adjustment Assistance for 1,990 workers across Iowa who would lose out on critically needed retraining and financial assistance - adding insult to injury after they've already lost their jobs to places like China and India."

In other Congressional news this week, Senate Republicans and a few Democrats filibustered Obama's job-creation bill on Tuesday night. Grassley backed the filibuster, while Harkin slammed the GOP:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement on the ongoing filibuster of President Obama's jobs bill by Senate Republicans. Harkin chairs both the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Appropriations subcommittee that funds health, education and labor initiatives.
"Millions of Americans continue to look for work unsuccessfully, because the jobs just simply do not exist. And while the economy lags, Senate Republicans continue to demonstrate a callous disregard for the most pressing issues facing our nation: joblessness and lack of economic growth.
"Today's obstruction of President Obama's job creation plans shows that Senate Republicans feel it is more important to be against the President than to be for jobs and the middle class. Having already blocked other job creating legislation this year, including a small business bill and an economic development bill, it is hardly surprising, though no less disappointing, that Republicans would put politics ahead of Americans who are trying to make ends meet.
"It is time to end the political infighting in Washington and pass the American Jobs Act so that we can create jobs, renew federal unemployment benefits and get our economy moving again."

Grassley released this statement:

"Since the 2009 stimulus bill was enacted, it's unclear that anything's been done to better safeguard the taxpayer dollars that would be pumped out in a second massive government spending bill like this one, despite the wasteful spending we saw with the first stimulus bill. My own oversight pinpointed money for housing assistance squandered by gross mismanagement, funds going to contractors and grantees who owed the government hundreds of millions of dollars in tax debts, stimulus dollars directed to school districts known for poor fiscal management, big spending for electronic records conversion in a health technology system not yet prepared to handle it, programs to create green jobs that didn't result in any jobs, and trouble even defining what qualified as a green job. Weatherization grants funded by the first stimulus program even created safety hazards because monitoring, testing and tracking the work fell by the wayside.
"What's more, President Obama's first stimulus bill didn't keep the unemployment rate down, and it's unclear how this one would create and sustain jobs. Beyond that, whatever the details of the tax increase, there's plenty of evidence that raising taxes in a struggling economy only makes things worse. Plus, since World War II, every dollar in new taxes has resulted in $1.17 in government spending. We need to reduce government spending, not increase it. Growing deficits and debt get in the way of economic growth and opportunity.
"Instead of a proposal that emphasizes higher taxes and more government spending, it's time for a new approach in Washington for economic recovery. Private-sector employers need more certainty. They need to know that higher taxes and more burdensome regulations are not just around the corner. They need an international trade agenda that opens up new opportunities to sell U.S. manufactured products and services. Affordable energy is needed, too. It's time to ramp up production of traditional energy sources here at home and to expand alternative and renewable energy sources. Above all, Washington needs to do what it can to give employers confidence and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of big and small businesses nationwide."

America: We Need a National Manufacturing Strategy

Congressman Bruce Braley — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:05:32 GMT

What did you buy this week? Now - how many of those items were made in America? Not many, I bet. Because even if we wanted to, most of us would be hard-pressed to buy only American-made products.

While U.S. jobs are steadily shipped overseas, the tidal wave of foreign-made goods in our stores and in our homes has become as regular as the tide. And that's a big problem for our country.

Most industrialized countries across the globe, including China and Germany, have long had national manufacturing strategies and policies that maximize their export potential. Instead, the U.S. has let the wave of globalization wash over us.

We must take a stand for our country and our workers - because if we want to win the future, we can't lose the present.

We have to finally develop a national manufacturing strategy that will create jobs, increase exports and strengthen our workforce - a workforce that used to be the envy of the world.

As Chairman of the Populist Caucus, I've been a tireless advocate for strengthening American manufacturing. It's understandable why we have an appetite for cheaply made foreign products - times are tough and foreign goods are cheap. But that's exactly why I believe we need a real strategy that will encourage more production of quality, affordable American-made products.

It's long past due for our national leaders to come together and stem the tide of lost manufacturing jobs. And I urge my colleagues in Congress to put partisan politics aside, stop bickering over red herrings and pass a national manufacturing strategy that will create jobs in the United States and strengthen our competiveness around the world.

Every single member of Congress has seen a factory close in their district or their state - and we've seen the devastation that comes with it. Once-thriving towns now stand empty. Desirable neighborhoods are barely hanging on. And I'm not just talking about the Maytag plant leaving Newton, Iowa. This has happened, and is happening, in communities across the country.

Over the last decade, the U.S. has lost more than five million manufacturing jobs. Sadly, most of these jobs will never come back. And our government's policies, or lack thereof, are largely responsible for this bleed.

Not so long ago, we led the world in manufacturing. Our products - strong, reliable, and affordable - were in stores and homes around the globe. Our workers and their ethic haven't changed. They remain the best. Isn't it high time for our government match their excellence?

Crossposted from Huffington Post

IA-01: Braley reinventing himself as a deficit hawk

desmoinesdem — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:14:18 GMT

President Barack Obama presented his $3.73 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 yesterday. I had a post in progress highlighting some good ideas from the proposal, like more investments in high-speed rail and clean energy programs, and reducing taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industries. There are bad ideas too, such as a pathetically small "cut" of $78 billion for defense spending over 10 years. The word "cut" misleads here because we're talking about a slightly smaller rate of growth for the defense budget. Our military spending skyrocketed during the last decade and should be reduced substantially if Washington officials are serious about reducing the deficit.

The moral failure of Obama's budget becomes clear when you look at the $400 billion in cuts he proposes for non-defense discretionary spending (which is half as large a portion of the budget pie as the military). Many of those cuts will hurt the vulnerable: less money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and some student aid programs, to name a couple of egregious examples. Obama also wants a "bipartisan" conversation about "strengthening" Social Security, and Washington bipartisanship on Social Security is sure to harm working people and future retirees.

Since the Republican-controlled House of Representatives won't enact the president's spending plans, the budget document is important mainly as a sign of Obama's priorities and political calculations going into this year's negotiations with Congress.

Speaking of political calculations, I was struck by Representative Bruce Braley's statement on the president's draft budget document--so much that I shifted gears on this post. Braley's comments were another sign of a noticeable change in tone since he won a third term in Iowa's first Congressional district. During the last Congress, Braley's policy statements often emphasized the importance of public investments. In the past two months, he has he put deficit hawkishness front and center. Several examples are after the jump, along with background putting Braley's new rhetorical style in political context.
Here's Braley's statement of February 14, 2011, regarding the president's spending blueprint for 2012:

"Today, the President released a budget that clearly involved some tough decisions - and I'm glad to see he is making an effort to address the very real problem of our outrageous deficit," said Rep. Braley. "I was pleased to see some of the President's proposed cuts, and while it's a good start, I think we can go even further.
"This budget clearly reflects our new national reality - the era of big borrowing and big spending is over. But we can, and must, go even further to reduce our deficit. As I said to the President and Speaker Boehner in a letter last week, we can't present Americans with false choices over issues as important as our national deficit and debt. We must work together - in the House, with the Senate and with the President - to present a responsible, common-sense budget plan to the American people. Our country's future depends on it."

Last week Braley struck an unusual (for a Democrat) pose against raising the national debt ceiling. Statement of February 9, 2011:

Washington, DC - Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) sent a letter to President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner asking them to provide a plan to avoid raising the debt ceiling. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner has stated that the U.S. will reach its debt limit sometime in April or May - and Speaker Boehner has indicated that the House will take a vote on raising the debt limit soon.
"Our national debt is around 14 trillion dollars and growing. That's unacceptable," said Braley. "Voters across the country spoke loud and clear last November - they want us to get spending under control. The President and Speaker are giving Congress and the American people a false choice - vote to raise the debt ceiling or vote to shut down the government. I know there's a better way. We must put forward a common sense, middle-of-the-road plan to bring down our debt and avoid having to make this false choice in April or May. That's why I hope the President and Speaker Boehner will propose a plan to avoid this scenario.
"I know, and the American people know, that we will have to make tough choices and tough cuts. I look forward to this process and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get our spending under control. But I cannot accept a situation where we kick the can further down the road. If we don't stop borrowing and spending now, when will we?
"In December, I voted against the $850 billion package of Bush tax bonuses for the rich because I know those tax bonuses are such a significant part of our national deficit. Both the President and Speaker Boehner supported them. Now, I want to hear their plan for cutting government spending in a way that doesn't force us to raise the debt ceiling once again."
A copy of the letter is attached.

When House Republicans voted last month to repeal the health insurance reform law, Braley's official statement led with fiscal concerns:

Washington, DC - Today, Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) voted against the Republican bill to repeal the health care reform law.
"The new majority campaigned on balancing the budget and getting our deficit under control, but their very first legislative initiative would blow a $230 billion hole in our deficit," said Congressman Braley. "There's no way I could support this irresponsible legislation."
If enacted into law, the Republicans' repeal would also roll back the most popular provisions that protect consumers from insurance company abuses. Insurance companies would once again be able to deny coverage to children and adults with pre-existing conditions, prevent young adults from staying on their parents' plans until age 26 and drop coverage for pregnant women and cancer survivors.
"The health care law, and the Republicans' effort to repeal it, has a human face," said Braley. "My nephew was finally able to take a new job, knowing his four-year-old son Tucker won't be dropped from his new health plan because of a liver cancer diagnosis. That's just one family. There are millions like them in Iowa and across the country."
"My Republican colleagues also don't seem to understand the very serious ramifications of their political games - or they haven't read their own bill. The text of their bill clearly states that they intend to repeal the health care law and restore its provisions as if it had never been enacted. One consequence of that language is that if this bill becomes law, millions of seniors across the country would be forced to pay the government $250 that they received and already spent under the health care reform law. I know Iowa's seniors can't afford that - and I certainly won't let my constituents pay the price for this political stunt."

Similarly, Braley cited fiscal concerns in voting against Obama's tax deal with Republicans in December:

Washington, DC - Congressman Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) voted against exploding the deficit by $858 billion dollars this evening. The bill passed the House by a vote of 277-148.
"Americans spoke clearly on November second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax dollars," Braley said. "After endless talk about fiscal responsibility, the looming threat of a growing deficit and forcing America's next generation into crushing debt to China - a so-called tax deal has been produced that will explode the deficit by $858 billion dollars. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial stability of our nation."
Braley spoke on the floor regarding the bill. His remarks are attached.

Bleeding Heartland posted Braley's floor remarks on the tax deal here. Many Democrats who voted against that bill made a moral argument against extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but Braley's floor statement again made the case in fiscal terms. Excerpt:

Those were some of the good things included in this deal. Unfortunately, the merits of those good things do not outweigh the bad things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax break to the wealthiest persons in this country. I refuse to support a bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a year. And I unequivocally refuse to threaten the long-term viability of social security with a shell game to pay for diminished social security contributions.
I'm voting "no" on this bad deal because we cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial stability of our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting "no."

About that whole "Americans speaking clearly" thing: I don't agree with the premise of Braley's statements, which suggests Democrats lost in November because voters want Congress to get serious about the deficit. Pick a poll, any poll, let's say the latest Pew Center poll, and you'll see that Americans are more concerned about jobs and the economy than about the deficit. Unemployment has been at historically high levels for some time, and Democrats were the party in power. Moreover, an "enthusiasm gap" boosted Republican turnout relative to Democratic turnout in most states. That's a recipe for a landslide right there.

I don't blame Braley for shifting gears after the election. He barely won a third term, 49.5 percent to 47.5 percent, against the little-known Ben Lange. Braley's political career might be over already if not for decent early voting numbers in his district and a couple of conservative third-party candidates, who got more votes combined than Braley's margin over Lange. In fairness to Braley, he was on the receiving end of about $1.6 million in spending by the American Future Fund and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That's big money for an incumbent to face anywhere, but it's especially significant in a low-cost media state like Iowa. No incumbent wants to battle that kind of outside spending, especially when facing an inoffensive opponent in a tough cycle for your party.

Braley's clout is also lower in the new Congress. Two years ago, he had a seat on the coveted House Energy and Commerce Committee and was picked to be a vice-chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. A year ago, insiders told the National Journal that Braley was one of the "most-promising" Democrats in Congress. But Democrats lost a bunch of seats on Energy and Commerce when Republicans took over the House. Braley was one of the low-seniority casualties. He now serves on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as the Veterans Affairs Committee. He has a new role at the DCCC, helping deal with outside spending by Republican-aligned groups.

Braley still leads the House Populist Caucus he founded in early 2009, but that group seems to have gone dormant. The Populists lost some members in the November election, and this year the only statement I've seen from the caucus announced a new leadership team (a couple of new vice chairs).

During the past two years, the Populist Caucus demanded various policies related to jobs, public investment and trade. Look at the four-point "Blueprint for Recovery" Braley advocated on behalf of the Populists a year ago. Braley talked about paying down the national deficit, but his emphasis was job creation and public investment, to be paid for by a new tax on Wall Street bonuses and a transaction fee on speculative stock transactions.

Judging from Braley's recent statements, we won't hear much from him about new taxes on Wall Street going into the 2012 elections. He still talks about job creation--for instance, in his response to Obama's latest State of the Union address. But Braley appears to have calculated that being tough on the deficit is better politics than bashing Wall Street speculators.

Speaking of 2012, Braley will seek a fourth term in a substantially larger district. Most prospective maps I've seen keep the metro areas of Waterloo/Cedar Falls, Dubuque and the Quad Cities in IA-01, adding a bunch of counties in northeast Iowa. That part of the state includes both Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning turf, but Republican Tom Latham has been able to win the area comfortably in the last several cycles. Some redistricting scenarios pit Latham and Braley against each other, which could be challenging for Braley. Latham has a bigger campaign war chest, more seniority and chairs a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

I am not convinced that becoming a vocal guardian of fiscal discipline is a great political strategy for Braley. The deficit isn't voters' primary concern. I also question whether a Democrat can win a competitive election on what is typically Republican issue turf. You and I know that Republicans don't really care about fiscal discipline--if they did, they wouldn't keep supporting unaffordable permanent tax cuts. Still, the public image of the GOP is that Republicans are for lower spending than Democrats, and it will be hard for Braley to single-handedly reverse that stereotype.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

FEBRUARY 16 UPDATE: Braley was the only member of the Iowa House delegation to vote for an amendment scrapping funding for an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter backup engine the Pentagon doesn't want. The amendment to the continuing resolution on defense funding for the current fiscal year passed on an unusual bipartisan vote of 233 to 198 (roll call).

How the election affected Braley's Populist Caucus

desmoinesdem — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:50:28 GMT

Now that Representative Bruce Braley has survived a Republican landslide despite a bucketload of money thrown at him, I thought I'd check to see how others in his House Populist Caucus fared on Tuesday.

Short story: the Populist Caucus lost five members. As a group, they fared better than the Blue Dogs or New Democrats, but not as well as the Progressive Caucus. The details are below.
Going into Tuesday's election, 33 House Democrats belonged to the Populist Caucus, up from 23 members when Braley founded the caucus in February 2009. Five of the Populists lost their seats: Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Phil Hare (IL-17), Steve Kagen (WI-08), Tom Perriello (VA-05), and Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01). Arcuri had been one of four vice-chairs of the Populist Caucus.

The 28 returning members are Braley, Vice Chair Betty Sutton (OH-13), Vice Chair Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Vice Chair Keith Ellison (MN-05), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Joe Courtney (CT-02), Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Lloyd Doggett (TX-25), Donna Edwards (MD-04), Bob Filner (CA-51), John Garamendi (CA-10), Mazie Hirono (HI-02), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Dan Lipinski (IL-03), Ben Lujan (NM-03), Michael Michaud (ME-02), Linda Sanchez (CA-39), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Brad Sherman (CA-27) Louise Slaughter (NY-28), Jackie Speier (CA-12), Paul Tonko (NY-21), Henry Waxman (CA-30), Peter Welch (VT-AL), John Yarmuth (KY-03).

Most of the Populist Caucus members represent safe Democratic districts, and only a few of the returning Populists had been considered vulnerable at any time this year (those include Boswell, Loebsack, Yarmuth, Sutton and Kaptur). In a scenario much like what Braley faced with the American Future Fund, a group calling itself Concerned Taxpayers of American spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on television commercials attacking DeFazio. It turned out just two individuals were funding the so-called Concerned Taxpayers. When all was said and done, Braley's 49.5 percent to 47.5 percent margin was the narrowest victory for any of the returning Populist Caucus members.

In the outgoing Congress, the Populist Caucus contained 12.9 percent of the House Democrats (33 out of 255). In the incoming Congress, the Populists will contain approximately 14.6 percent of the House Democrats (28 out of 192).

The New Democrats and Blue Dogs lost more members than the Populists, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the caucus membership. The Blue Dogs and New Democrats will still be larger groups than the Populists, but not twice as large as they were in the Congress on the way out.

The Progressive Caucus, to which Loebsack also belongs, lost only 5 percent of its members and has more returning members than the Blue Dogs and New Democrats combined. That may change if the Blue Dogs replenish their ranks a bit from their waiting list. Membership in the Blue Dogs is capped at 25 percent of the House Democratic caucus.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Braley outlines Populist Caucus "Blueprint for Recovery"

desmoinesdem — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:08:30 GMT

Representative Bruce Braley advocated a four-point "Blueprint for Recovery" in Politico yesterday. The House Populist Caucus, which Braley formed last year, has endorsed these proposals to "require Wall Street to pay for economic development on Main Street and to pay down our nation's deficit."

Compensation. We need to change the culture of limitless bonuses by passing the Wall Street Bonus Tax Act (H.R. 4426). America's middle-class families saw their savings wiped out by Wall Street's gambling addictions and then watched as their tax dollars went to save troubled banks. The targeted tax would apply only to executives at banks that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funding who took bonuses in excess of $50,000. The Bonus Tax Act would generate billions of dollars of new revenue that would be directed exclusively to reward small businesses that are investing in new jobs.
Speculation. We need to stop excessive and risky speculation on Wall Street by passing the Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act (H.R. 4191). This legislation would reinstate a tiny transaction fee on speculative stock transactions by Wall Street traders, creating $150 billion annually in new revenue that would be dedicated to job creation and reducing the deficit.
Job creation. A "jobless recovery" is not a recovery for the middle class. With a national unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent, it's clear America's middle-class families are still struggling to make ends meet.
That's why we need to take the following two-pronged approach to creating good-paying jobs that can't be outsourced: We need to pass the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act (H.R. 2521), which would establish a wholly owned government corporation to prioritize infrastructure improvement projects that would create good-paying jobs. We also need to pass the Buy American Improvement Act (H.R. 4351) to eliminate loopholes in existing domestic sourcing laws and ensure that taxpayer money is used to purchase American-made products and support American jobs whenever possible.

Click here for more details on the Wall Street transaction fees the Populist Caucus supports. The idea is worthwhile, but I am skeptical that the current economic team in the Obama administration would get behind it.

I'm not clear on why a new government corporation on infrastructure projects needs to be created (as opposed to just appropriating more funds for existing agencies to spend on high-speed rail, affordable housing or other infrastructure needs). I asked Braley's office for comment on that part of the blueprint and received this reply:

The Populist Caucus believes we need a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) now to invest in merit-based infrastructure projects-both traditional and technological-by leveraging private capital. In recent years, the private sector has raised more than $100 billion in dedicated infrastructure funds, but most of that money is being invested overseas. We need an NIB to attract those funds into a U.S. market for infrastructure development.

It's notable that the Populist Caucus is not backing broader populist measures, such as tax hikes for corporations and the top 1 percent of individual earners. Then again, Braley's caucus prepared and approved this "blueprint" before Oregon residents approved two tax-raising ballot initiatives this week.

Year in review: national politics in 2009 (part 2)

desmoinesdem — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:56:38 GMT

Following up on the diary I posted this morning, this post compiles links to Bleeding Heartland's coverage of national politics from July through December 2009. Health care reform was again the number one topic. I wish there had been a happy ending.
July 2009

A video of Chuck Grassley went viral after he told a questioner at a town-hall meeting to "go work for the federal government" if he wanted a health insurance plan like the one Grassley enjoys.

The Iowa Farm Bureau expressed confidence that the climate change bill would die in the Senate. It seems that they were right.

Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska right before the Fourth of July.

The health care reform debate demonstrated that Washington's revolving door between government and lobbying is still running smoothly.

Al Franken started making us proud immediately after being sworn in as the junior U.S. senator from Minnesota.

Steve King was the only House member to vote against placing "a marker acknowledging the role that slave labor played in constructing the Capitol" in a "prominent location in the visitor center's Emancipation Hall."

The Government Accountability Office examined how 16 states were handling federal stimulus funds. Iowa got good marks for its "foundation of safeguards to help ensure the funds are being spent in the way that they were intended and to minimize the fraud, waste and abuse."

News emerged that the CIA did withhold "information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney." Republicans included Steve King had been bashing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for months after Pelosi claimed the CIA did not reveal its waterboarding policy during a 2002 briefing. RDemocrat posted more reflections on this story.

Guest poster jamess wrote about the insurance industry's rescission practices and which illnesses are most likely to put policy-holders on the "drop list."

Health Care for America Now and the Iowa Citizen Action Network created a "job application" for Iowans wanting to take Chuck Grassley's advice to "go work for the federal government" if they want good health insurance coverage.

Chuck Grassley lectured Judge Sonia Sotomayor and generally didn't distinguish himself during her confirmation hearings, but he did get a laugh out of the room.

There was massive demand for the high-speed rail funding allocated in the stimulus bill.

Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell helped negotiate new language in the House health care reform bill to change Medicare reimbursements.

Representative Tom Latham tried but failed to replace $3 billion in high-speed rail funds with more money for roads in a transportation appropriations bill.

Cash for Clunkers went into effect.

Chuck Grassley announced plans to vote against confirming Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

The RNC ran radio ads against Leonard Boswell on health care.

Guest blogger RDemocrat called for opposing the compromise House version of health care reform (which would have been a lot better than the final bill we're likely to get).

Amid growing dissatisfaction with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' handling of the health care reform bill, Tom Harkin suggested having the Democratic caucus vote by secret ballot every two years on whether a chairman should continue in that role.

August 2009

The National Republican Congressional Committee included Leonard Boswell (IA-03) on its list of 70 Democratic-held districts to be targeted in 2010.

The Sunlight Foundation reported on Chuck Grassley's ties to health and insurance PACs.

I still held out hope that Congress might reject Obama's deal with big Pharma.

The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor as associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Iowa Republicans grew increasingly worried that Chuck Grassley might help Democrats pass health care reform, but I knew he wasn't working to improve the bill or its chances of passing.

Congress quickly moved to extend the Cash for Clunkers program in light of huge demand. By the end of the month, President Obama signed a bill allocating another $2 billion to the program.

Sarah Palin's warning about "downright evil" health care rationing inspired this diary about health care rationing that happens already.

Chuck Grassley played the "pull the plug on grandma" card.

Iowa got the highest marks in the Work Loss Data Institute's 2009 state report cards on workers' compensation.

Bleeding Heartland user iowademocrat attended a Tom Harkin health care forum and declared, "Now I understand why war happens."

Leonard Boswell was vague about what he considered essential elements of a health care reform bill.

Democratic candidate for Iowa secretary of agriculture Francis Thicke advocated "ecology as a model for livestock production."

News emerged that in 2003 Chuck Grassley voted to fund end-of-life counseling for the terminally ill.

Bleeding Heartland user iowademocrat posted some ideas on how to "defeat the health care forum bullies".

The White House sent Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius out on tv to make clear that the Obama administration was not insisting that health care reform include a public option.

Bleeding Heartland user hei posted a first-person account from one of Dave Loebsack's town-hall meetings.

Chuck Grassley admitted that he would vote against health care reform even if Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus amended the bill to include all the changes Grassley requested.

As some Senate Democrats floated regional health insurance co-operatives as an alternative to the public option, the New York Times noted that health insurance co-ops had already failed in Iowa.

A coalition of labor unions started running ads against Chuck Grassley on health care reform.

Critics of the public option continued to ignore bigger problems with huge problems with current health insurance industry practices.

Rumors continued to circulate about a high-profile Democrat joining the race against Chuck Grassley.

The Cash for Clunkers program ended, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced plans to introduce cash rebates for energy-efficient appliances.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman vowed to shine a light on the health insurance industry's common business practices.

I chose not to attend an Organizing for America rally on health care reform.

Bleeding Heartland user iowademocrat, an early Obama supporter, lost patience with the president: "I refuse to work for his version of health care reform when he has no clear goal other than to pass something - anything - that may get through Congress, regardless of content."

Senator Ted Kennedy passed away, and his friend John Culver (former U.S. Senator, father of Chet Culver) made memorable remarks at the funeral.

September 2009

Polls showed Democrats losing the generic Congressional ballot advantage and trailing Republicans in terms of voter intensity.

The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a report on how quickly states are turning around stimulus road funds, and Iowa scored quite well.

I never believed the rumors that social conservatives were considering a primary challenge against Chuck Grassley.

The Obama administration's negotiating position on the public option irritated me. (That post was written under the assumption that Obama wanted a public option in the health reform bill, which is arguable.)

I maintained that Chuck Grassley is not a knucklehead.

Tom Harkin became chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee after Senator Chris Dodd decided to remain chairman of the Banking Committee.

Barack Obama delivered a speech on health care reform to the House and the Senate. I was disappointed by lines he drew and didn't draw in the sand.

Tom Harkin claimed he had 60 votes to pass the Employee Free Choice Act in July, but Senator Ted Kennedy was too ill to come to the Capitol to vote.

I discussed why Jews are liberals and Norman Podhoretz is asking the wrong question.

Tom Harkin held his annual steak fry, featuring Senator Al Franken of Minnesota. Harkin promised that health care reform containing a public option would pass by Christmas.

BruceMcF described what a real public health insurance option would look like.

I was disturbed by the failure of any prominent Republican to denounce political rhetoric of armed rebellion.

Health insurance co-ops, proposed by some Democrats as a compromise in place of a public option, are designed to fail.

Tom Latham and Steve King voted against the student loan reform bill that passed the House of Representatives. Tom Harkin promised to get the reform through the Senate.

Iowans again split on party lines as the U.S. House extended unemployment benefits.

Steve King decided same-sex marriage would lead to a "socialist society."

Chuck Grassley continued to make the case against health care reform.

The death of census worker Bill Sparkman prompted this post urging conservative politicians to stop demonizing the census.

Asked about the Congressional vote he most regrets, Steve King said he couldn't think of any and pivoted to bragging about what he considers his "best vote": against the $1.5 billion aid package for Hurricane Katrina victims.

The growing questions surrounding Strategic Vision made me wonder whether their 2007 Iowa polls were fabricated.

Kentucky-based blogger RDemocrat discussed the widening gap between rich and poor in this guest post.

Conservatives including Steve King targeted the Service Employees International Union as part of the continuing war on ACORN.

The Senate Finance Committee rejected amendments that would have included a public health insurance option, but Tom Harkin continued to insist that Senate Democrats had the votes to pass a public option.

October 2009

During the Senate Finance Committee markup of the health reform bill, Chuck Grassley had the insurance companies' back.

Senator Byron Dorgan vowed to offer an amendment on importing prescription drugs. The Senate eventually voted down that amendment in December, partly because the White House had promised pharmaceutical companies that re-importation would not be part of health care reform.

I became increasingly concerned that health insurance companies would easily evade the new regulations being considered by Congress.

The health care reform battle took a toll on Chuck Grassley's approval rating, according to Survey USA.

Rinku Sen and Billy Parish cross-posted a piece on youth unemployment.

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Movement toward an "opt-out" public health insurance option concerned me.

I wondered whether Iowa Republicans would seek out Sarah Palin's endorsement next year.

Tom Harkin correctly predicted that a food safety bill would not clear Congress this year.

News that a Colorado insurance company used a breastfeeding infant's "obesity" as an excuse to deny insurance coverage outraged me.

Chuck Grassley capped months of bad-faith negotiating by voting no on the Senate Finance Committee's health reform bill, even though it lacked a public health insurance option.

News of record pay on Wall Street prompted this post on the failures of the bailout policy that George Bush began and Barack Obama continued.

Chuck Grassley whined about Senate Democrats not including Republicans as the health reform bills passed by the HELP and Finance committees were merged. Meanwhile, Grassley suggested an individual mandate to purchase health insurance might be unconstitutional, even though he was on record during the summer supporting that kind of mandate.

The same week that Steve King joined the right-wing crusade against White House "safe schools" official Kevin Jennings, Mike Denklau became the first Democrat to announce plans to run against King in Iowa's fifth Congressional district in 2010.

I reflected on the good life enjoyed by uninsured apes in America, as opposed to human beings who lack health insurance.

Bleeding Heartland user Runaway Rose analyzed Chuck Grassley's stance on climate change-related issues.

Inspired by ads New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine ran against overweight Republican Chris Christie, Bleeding Heartland user American007 pondered whether Chet Culver might be too big to win re-election.

I took another guess at how the likely Republican presidential candidates will do in the 2012 Iowa caucuses.

House Progressives failed to round up 218 votes for the more robust version of the public health insurance option.

Harry Reid included a very weak opt-out public health insurance option in his merged health reform bill, no thanks to President Obama, who urged Reid to drop the public option in favor of a "trigger."

Tom Harkin predicted that Joe Lieberman would not stand in the way of health care reform, because he has too much to lose.

November 2009

Democrats in Iowa and nationwide should not resort to sexist insults when mocking Sarah Palin.

I argued that it's a waste of time for journalists to speculate on whether Steve King will run for president in 2012.

I reviewed some reactions to the off-year elections in Iowa, Maine, New Jersey and Virginia. In general it was a tough night for Iowa incumbents.

Steve King falsely claimed that the Democrats' proposed health care reform would cancel every private insurance contract in the country. King also missed a House Judiciary Committee hearing in order to participate in Michele Bachmann's Capitol Hill rally against health care reform. In so doing he helped doom several GOP-sponsored amendments to the PATRIOT Act.

The U.S. House narrowly approved a health care reform bill, and Iowa's representatives split on party lines.

The Iowa-based conservative advocacy group American Future Fund asked the Federal Election Commission to overturn state bans on political robocalls.

Health Care for America Now ran ads thanking a number of House Democrats for supporting health care reform, including Iowa's Leonard Boswell.

The Pew Center on the States released a report on state budget problems, and Iowa got good marks as one of the states "least like California." You'd never know that from listening to Iowa Republicans, however.

Crisitunity's Swing State Project post about vulnerable Democratic-held House districts suggested to me that the National Republican Congressional Committee is unlikely to invest heavily in Leonard Boswell's GOP opponent next year.

The Des Moines Register's Iowa poll indicated that Roxanne Conlin would have an uphill battle against Chuck Grassley.

I argued that we should pull the plug on the climate change bill pending in Congress because Senate Democrats including Tom Harkin are demanding even more concessions to polluting industries.

A report on the AIG bailout released by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program confirmed my opinion that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner must go.

I viewed the upcoming GOP primary in Iowa's second Congressional district as a sign of the shrinking Republican tent. In a D+7 district long represented by Jim Leach, none of the potential GOP candidates is a social moderate.

Republican hypocrisy regarding the Obama administration's plans to try some terrorism suspects in the U.S. inspired this post.

After reading a report from Physicians for Social Responsibility, "Coal's Assault on Human Health," I suggested that it's misguided for some politicians to claim that climate change legislation would be "unfair" to residents of coal-dependent states.

I urged President Obama to ignore the people advising him to make deficit reduction a top priority next year.

I apologized for wrongly assuming that census worker Bill Sparkman had been murdered in September.

Bleeding Heartland user American007 speculated about nine possible choices for Time magazine's person of the year. This diary did not predict the selection of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke but presciently noted that Time's editors often "recognize the people attempting to combat the bad economy."

I discussed the so-called "purity test" resolution backed by some RNC members, which is intended to cut off GOP support for any candidate who strays too far from conservative dogma. At least two of Iowa's three RNC members support the test.

December 2009

I was disappointed by President Obama's speech announcing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

The executive director of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement published a good piece in the Des Moines Register about ending USDA loans that encourage construction of more factory farms.

Jim Gibbons' Congressional campaign's first attack against Leonard Boswell was pathetic, even by the standards of modern Republican campaigns.

Bruce Braley's House Populist Caucus and Tom Harkin advocated new Wall Street transaction fees to increase revenue and discourage "reckless speculation."

OK, this wasn't a political story, but I posted some reflections on John Lennon's music on the 29th anniversary of his death.

Bruce Braley called for Congress to include Buy American provisions in a jobs bill (the final bill included that language).

Leonard Boswell turned up on a list of 17 House Democrats that the NRCC hopes to pressure into retirement.

I gave up hope that health insurance reform would be an improvement on the status quo after Senate Democrats brokered a lousy deal that fell apart days later.

Two votes in the House over reforming the estate tax and extending some tax breaks for businesses told me a lot about Republican priorities.

A draft memo from the Department of Justice indicated that the Obama administration was likely to move some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois.

A federal judge halted a Congressional ban on funding for ACORN on the grounds that the legislation was an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

The Senate health insurance reform bill was looking worse every day (though a later version of Reid's manager's amendment did close one of the loopholes I mentioned in that post).

Tom Harkin said he may reintroduce a bill he sponsored in 1995 that would have changed the Senate's rules on the filibuster.

The House approved new regulations of Wall Street, and Iowa's delegation again split on party lines.

I was furious that White House officials told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to give in to all of Joe Lieberman's demands on health care reform. Lieberman later said that President Obama never asked him to support a public health insurance option.

I responded to Nate Silver's claim that any Democrat who opposes the Senate's version of health care reform must be "batflippin' crazy."

Bill Maske declared his candidacy in Iowa's fourth Congressional district. He faces an uphill battle against eight-term Republican incumbent Tom Latham.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee made me angry with their incessant spin about "Republican obstruction" being the main threat to real health care reform.

I couldn't believe that Time magazine named Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke the person of the year. It reminded me of why my high school debate coach dismissed publications like Time and Newsweek as "McNews."

Environment Iowa warned that expanding our national investment in nuclear power is not the answer to global warming.

I reviewed some recent national opinion poll data on health care reform, which should worry Democrats.

Jim Gibbons secured the backing of many heavy-hitter Republican donors in his race for the GOP nomination in IA-03.

I got fed up with MoveOn.org after receiving yet another e-mail blaming Joe Lieberman for "single-handedly" trying to block health insurance reform. (Later MoveOn.org did come out against the Senate's version of the bill, but they still failed to hold the president accountable for his role in letting the bill get watered down.)

The House passed a jobs bill using returned money from the Wall Street bailout, and Iowa's representatives split on party lines.

After seeing the weak November fundraising numbers from the National Republican Congressional Committee, I predicted the NRCC will not spend heavily in IA-03 next year.

Senate Democrats reached a deal on health reform and secured 60 votes for the first cloture motion.

The National Republican Congressional Committee started a new robocall against Leonard Boswell three days before Christmas.

Wall Street viewed the Senate deal on health reform as good news for the insurance industry.

The Senate passed its version of health insurance reform on Christmas Eve.

The Census Bureau's last population estimates before the 2010 census confirmed that Iowa will lose a Congressional district during the next reapportionment.

Harkin confirmed that he is looking for allies to change the Senate rules on the filibuster.

Citing official statements by Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Grassley and Harkin, I previewed next year's campaign messages on health care reform.

I launched a holiday haiku contest, and Bleeding Heartland readers submitted some good haikus inspired by the governor's race and the campaign in Iowa's third Congressional district.

Likely 2012 presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty endorsed the idea of a federal constitutional amendment requiring Congress to pass a balanced budget.

The Department of Labor released an encouraging annual Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities.

Early Obama supporter John Norris was confirmed for a position with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Steve King kept scaremongering about health care reform and the threat posed by moving terrorist suspects from Guantanamo Bay.

Environment Iowa's annual scorecard for the Iowa Democrats in Congress got me thinking about how Bruce Braley, Tom Harkin and Leonard Boswell handled the climate change issue during the year.

Year in review: national politics in 2009 (part 1)

desmoinesdem — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:52:32 GMT

It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished compiling links to Bleeding Heartland's coverage from last year. This post and part 2, coming later today, include stories on national politics, mostly relating to Congress and Barack Obama's administration. Diaries reviewing Iowa politics in 2009 will come soon.

One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.

No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn't have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can't say I wasn't warned (and warned), though.

Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year's political events are welcome in this thread.
January 2009

Bill Richardson withdrew his name from consideration for Commerce secretary.

President Obama named Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

Bruce Braley became a vice chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Bleeding Heartland user American007 offered nine predictions for 2009 and wasn't far off the mark.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee started the year with significant debts.

The House passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act, and the Iowa delegation split on party lines.

Bleeding Heartland user IowaVoter reported on problems with the audit logs of Diebold voting machines.

A report by Democracy Corps showed how early voting helped Democrats in the 2008 election.

Guest poster Senate Guru wondered whether Chuck Grassley might retire, but Grassley's office quickly denied that he was considering retirement.

Tom Latham and Steve King voted against expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Tom Vilsack sailed through his confirmation hearing, and lots of important agriculture and food policy issues came up.

President-elect Obama signaled that he might not be fully committed to passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

Steve King refused to join the other six Iowans in Congress who co-hosted an inaugural reception in Washington.

I considered whether Hillary Clinton or John Edwards could have won the Iowa caucuses, assuming Barack Obama ran the same outstanding campaign he ran. This was one of the longest posts I've ever written, and it got a mixed reaction on national blogs where I cross-posted it.

Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th American president.

I am so grateful to Justice John Paul Stevens.

The Senate unanimously confirmed six Obama appointees: Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and White House Budget Office director Peter Orszag.

Chuck Grassley was one of four Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to vote against confirming Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary.

The House passed a symbolic resolution opposing the release of more money for the Wall Street bailout. Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted for the resolution, but Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell voted no.

Noneed4thneed was excited about President Obama's plans to cut Pentagon spending. Unfortunately, it turned out that the administration only reduced the increase in defense spending.

The four Democratic governors who got to appoint new senators didn't handle the task very well. Senator Russ Feingold had a better idea, proposing a constitutional amendment to require elections to fill vacant Senate seats.

Tom Vilsack got to work at the USDA.

The Senate confirmed Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, but both Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted no. I stand by my prediction that Geithner will turn out to be one of Obama's worst appointments.

President Obama made too many concessions on the stimulus bill in a (misguided) effort to win Republican votes.

The House approved the stimulus bill without a single Republican vote in favor.

Bruce Braley signed a letter requesting more humanitarian assistance for Gaza.

Despite expressing concerns about Eric Holder during the confirmation hearings, Chuck Grassley voted on the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm Holder as attorney general.

Tom Harkin expressed valid concerns that the stimulus bill being drafted was too small and too loaded with tax cuts unlikely to boost consumer spending.

Chuck Grassley voted against expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele as new chairman. Iowa's RNC reps backed South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson instead.

February 2009

Tax problems derailed Tom Daschle's nomination for secretary of Health and Human Services.

Many Republican governors supported the stimulus bill, even as Congressional Republicans criticized it.

Republicans bashed Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri because although she is personally wealthy, she advocated salary caps at Wall Street firms that took bailout money.

The Senate confirmed Eric Holder as attorney general. For reasons I still cannot fathom, President Obama was about to tap Republican Senator Judd Gregg to run the Commerce Department.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ran some radio ads against Tom Latham.

Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, found that various types of government spending all delivered much more stimulus to the economy than tax cuts.

Chuck Grassley said what it would take to get his vote for the stimulus package.

Tom Harkin said Howard Dean would make a great secretary for Health and Human Services.

As new RNC Chairman Michael Steele axed plans for an in-house think tank, I argued that Republicans didn't need "new ideas" to come back to power. All they need is for Democrats to fail to deliver on their promises.

Noneed4thneed pointed out that so-called Senate "centrists" insisted on changes to the stimulus bill that reduced its potential to create jobs and threatened to bankrupt the states.

Senate Republicans failed to block the stimulus bill.

Guest poster Jill Richardson/OrangeClouds115 let Bleeding Heartland readers know what Tom Vilsack had been up to during his first weeks as secretary of agriculture.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was already looking like one of Obama's worst high-level appointments.

Bruce Braley got ready to roll out the House Populist Caucus and said it would advocate for "Buy American" language in the stimulus bill.

House and Senate negotiators made final changes to the stimulus bill.

Judd Gregg withdrew his name from consideration as Commerce Secretary (thank goodness).

Steve King bragged about research he did in high school, which allegedly proved that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

The House approved the stimulus bill, and Iowa's representatives split on party lines. Tom Harkin said he wasn't a "happy camper" and that Democratic leaders had reduced valuable spending in order to spend more money on fixing the alternative minimum tax, which "has nothing to do with stimulus."

Guest poster JulianaW wrote about high-speed rail funding and the stimulus bill.

George W. Bush ranked 36th out of the 42 American presidents, in the collective opinion of 65 professional historians or observers of the presidency. I felt it was unfair for Bush to be ranked ahead of William Henry Harrison.

Guest poster Jill Richardson/OrangeClouds115 posted another update on Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's activities.

Tom Harkin vowed to hold a Senate hearing on the mentally disabled workers exploited by a Texas-based company operating in Iowa.

Rush Limbaugh said he wanted everything President Obama did to fail.

New details emerged about the Justice Department investigation into the torture memos prepared during the Bush administration.

President Obama signed the stimulus bill, and I linked to various pages with more details about what the package allocated to Iowa.

House Republicans began taking credit for stimulus spending they voted against.

The Wall Street bailout still looked ill-conceived.

Representative Bruce Braley rolled out the House Populist Caucus.

Two years after Steve Gilliard stopped blogging, I still missed him.

Bleeding Heartland user Elise attended one of Chuck Grassley's town-hall meetings in eastern Iowa.

Progressive Punch added a new layer of analysis to its rankings of members of Congress by voting record in order to indicate how progressive representatives and senators are compared to the districts and states they represent.

A McDonald's employee who got shot helping a stranger while on the job was stuck with $300,000 in medical bills after the insurance agency representing McDonald's said he didn't qualify for Workers Compensation.

I reflected on my biggest health scare and how much worse it might have been if I didn't have health insurance.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee decided to keep Leonard Boswell in its Frontline program for vulnerable incumbents.

The Senate finally confirmed Hilda Solis as labor secretary.

A majority of Americans said sticking to the policies he campaigned on should be a higher priority for the president than working in a bipartisan way.

President Obama gave his first State of the Union address (technically a budget speech) to Congress.

Increasing food stamp participation rates would have been a good way to stimulate the economy.

President Obama sent his first budget request to Congress.

Progressive bloggers formed the Accountability Now PAC to "recruit, coordinate, and support primary challenges against vulnerable Congressional incumbents who have become more responsive to corporate America than to their constituents."

The Coen brothers directed a great ad ridiculing the idea of "clean coal."

We learned that Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire made money off one of his own earmarks.

President Obama announced his plans for Iraq and promised "combat operations" would end by August 2010.

March 2009

I weighed the pros and cons of Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary. (With hindsight, I wish she had remained governor of Kansas to keep blocking new coal plants there.)

A national poll by Hart Research Associates found that "An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over building new roads [...]."

President Obama issued a memo to department heads on restricting no-bid contracts and canceling wasteful contracts.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack axed about $500,000 in USDA consulting contracts.

Republicans were full of phony outrage over earmarks in the omnibus spending bill.

Chuck Grassley and President Obama exchanged words over a public health insurance option at a White House event.

Leonard Boswell, who sits on the House Transportation Committee, advocated a feasibility study on extending Amtrak through central Iowa to Omaha.

Leading Republicans in Washington proposed a federal spending freeze, which is a great idea if you want to turn a severe recession into a depression.

Comments by Elizabeth Dole's former campaign manager reminded me that it helps for incumbents to have some record to run on.

Grim unemployment numbers prompted this post, with some ideas on finding a job.

I wondered whether it would be politically smart for Representative Tom Latham to cooperate with Obama.

President Obama proposed reforms to the Congressional earmarking process, and I gave background on the failure of Democratic leadership that led to Tom Harkin's $1.8 million earmark for studying odors from large hog confinements (CAFOs) in Iowa. That earmark that became a poster child for Republican outrage over wasteful spending.

Tom Latham took credit for getting earmarks to fund Iowa projects in the omnibus spending bill he voted against.

Chuck Grassley posted my all-time favorite tweet by him, indicating that Iowa Republican lawmakers felt ignored by business lobbyists.

Steve King took credit for stimulus funds that will help widen U.S. Highway 20 in rural northwest Iowa, even though he voted against the stimulus bill.

The Wall Street bailout didn't look any better to me several months after it was implemented.

On my 40th birthday I posted a list of 40 good bloggers over 40, though it turned out a few of them were younger than I realized.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana rolled out the "Moderate Dems Working Group."

Some important news flew under the radar: Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced "a new partnership to help American families gain better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs."

The House passed a bill that would levy a special tax on large bonuses awarded by financial institutions receiving bailout funds. Republican Tom Latham joined Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell in voting yes; Steve King voted no.

The Obamas announced plans for an organic garden on the White House lawn.

Chuck Grassley commented on AIG bonuses and medical marijuana, as Iowa Democratic Veterans Caucus chair Bob Krause announced plans to run against Grassley in 2010.

The White House held a regional forum on health care reform in Des Moines.

Bleeding Heartland user Iowan made the case for Congress to support the large increase in clean water funding in President Obama's budget proposal.

The cover story for the Atlantic Monthly promped me to make my case against Hanna Rosin's case against breastfeeding.

Representative Steve King promised to pay back property taxes he owed in the District of Columbia.

A group promoting the use of chemicals in agriculture got bent out of shape by First Lady Michelle Obama's plans for an organic White House garden.

Tom Harkin worked on compromise language to get the Employee Free Choice Act through the Senate.

April 2009

Chuck Grassley voted for the Wall Street bailout but didn't like the idea of the federal government bailing out U.S. automakers.

A new report from the U.S. Geological Survey indicated that Iowa contains 42 of the 150 watersheds that create the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.

The House approved President Obama's budget, and the Iowa delegation split on party lines.

Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said they wouldn't settle for health care reform with no public health insurance option.

Food Democracy Now advocated changes to current rules, which allow "large corporate farms to take advantage of [federal] subsidy loopholes that place independent family farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage."

Guest poster RDemocrat wrote about child poverty in rural America.

Guest poster RDemocrat discussed prospects for punishing American companies that committed fraud in Iraq.

Guest poster The Electrical Worker wrote about efforts to help workers in the renewable energy manufacturing sector to join labor unions.

Soft-drink makers pitted public health advocates against "moderation moms" and "hard-working families."

On April 15 I posted some links related to the federal and Iowa tax systems as Mike Huckabee and Representative Steve King appeared at a "Fair Tax" rally in South Carolina.

News emerged that "The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year [...]."

President Barack Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood released a blueprint for a new national network of high-speed passenger rail lines.

Leonard Boswell advocated normalizing trade relations with Cuba.

Scientists isolated one cause of the "colony collapse disorder" affecting honeybees.

Norm Coleman's refusal to accept the result of the Minnesota election did lasting harm to Al Franken's seniority.

Chuck Grassley's comments on how to address the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage didn't please red-meat conservatives.

El Tinklenberg, former Democratic candidate in Minnesota's sixth Congressional district, donated $250,000 in unspent campaign funds to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, prompting this post on the need for progressive activists to donate strategically, not emotionally.

President Obama came to Newton, Iowa, for Earth Day.

Bleeding Heartland user Elise wrote about Chuck Grassley's "then and now" position on using the filibuster to block presidential appointees.

I was on the receiving end of an unethical push-poll/fundraising call from Newt Gingrich's American Solutions organization and wrote up their pitch to small donors.

Senator Arlen Specter left the Republican caucus to become a Democrat and claimed that he would outrank Tom Harkin in the Democratic caucus.

Chuck Grassley voted no as the Senate finally confirmed Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary.

Arlen Specter's party switch created a chance for Chuck Grassley to become ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but taking that chance would mean giving up the ranking member slot on the Finance Committee.

President Obama held a press conference to mark his 100th day in office. I liked how he said that bipartisanship isn't "simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work and the American people voted to change."

May 2009

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke reversed a Bush administration rule that undermined Endangered Species Act protections.

After Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement, I posted thoughts on criteria the president should use in choosing his replacement.

Tom Harkin and Representative Dave Loebsack spoke out in favor of a public health insurance option.

Bleeding Heartland user Elise wrote about Chuck Grassley's hypocrisy on the use of filibusters.

Mark Penn was wrong about why Hillary Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses.

The advance of marriage equality in Iowa and Vermont made it even more important to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Chuck Grassley decided to remain the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, but struck a deal allowing him to take that position on the Judiciary Committee in 2011.

Tom Harkin defended his decision to recommend Stephanie Rose for U.S. attorney in Iowa's northern district, even though the U.S. Supreme Court found that "federal prosecutors have inappropriately used aggravated identity theft laws to prosecute undocumented workers."

Survey USA found significant dips in the approval ratings of Chuck Grassley and Chet Culver during the month of April.

Tom Harkin introduced an important child nutrition bill and discussed possible grounds for compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Chuck Grassley's so-called bipartisan message on health care reform raised a lot of red flags for me.

I wondered why Bruce Braley's Populist Caucus wasn't speaking up more on health care reform.

I laid out optimistic and pessimistic views of a reported White House deal on cost-saving measures with "the presidents of Pharma, Advamed (device manufacturers), the American Medical Association (doctors), the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and SEIU's Health Care project."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee kept Leonard Boswell in its "Frontline" program for vulnerable incumbents, but I argued that Boswell would not be vulnerable in 2010. (2012 is a different story.)

Chuck Grassley said he was open to compromise on health care reform.

On the anniversary of the immigration raid in Postville, Iowa, guest poster Frank Sharry profiled Steve King's extremist statements about the incident and immigration generally.

Chuck Grassley started making the case against "government-run" health care.

Hospitals and insurance companies said President Obama had "substantially overstated their promise [...] to reduce the growth of health spending."

House Republican leader John Boehner asked why anyone would want a government-run health care plan to jeopardize "the greatest health-care delivery system in the world"? I provided ten answers to his question.

Opinion poll data on the young generation painted a grim picture for Republicans.

Members of Representative Bruce Braley's Populist Caucus were among 55 House members who took a stand against the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

I received an unethical fundraising call disguised as an opinion survey for David Bossie's group Citizens United.

Appalling new details emerged about how mentally disabled workers were underpaid and exploited by a company with ties in Iowa and Texas.

President Obama made more history by nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Chuck Grassley promised not to be a "rubber stamp."

When California's Supreme Court let Proposition 8 stand, I reminded Bleeding Heartland readers that Iowa recognizes all California marriages.

Some Wall Street firms whined about labor unions questioning investment fund managers about their stance on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Howard Dean spoke in Des Moines about marriage equality and reflected on his experience after he signed a civil unions bill in Vermont.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack took a step toward undoing bad Bush administration policy on national forests.

Republican fantasies about Sonia Sotomayor didn't square with her judicial record.

Steve King recorded robocalls to identify and solicit donations from opponents of same-sex marriage rights. The National Organization for Marriage paid for the calls.

Dr. George Tiller was assassinated at a church in Wichita because he performed late-term abortions at his clinic.

June 2009

Senator John Ensign paid a high-profile visit to Iowa before anyone knew about the multiple scandals that will prevent him from running for president in 2012.

President Obama nominated longtime Representative Jim Leach, one of his high-profile Republican endorsers, to head the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Chuck Grassley said he couldn't recall or find any record explaining why he voted against confirming Sonia Sotomayor to the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in 1998. My hunch is that like other Republicans, he didn't want Sotomayor to be in line for the Supreme Court.

Chuck Grassley wasn't happy with President Obama's comments on health care reform and told the world about it on Twitter.

Leonard Boswell confirmed that he supported a public health insurance option without a "trigger."

All of Iowa's representatives in the House voted for the Cash for Clunkers bill.

A Supreme Court ruling related to a West Virginia Supreme Court judge prompted this post on the merits of scrapping judicial elections.

The Project on Government Oversight reviewed state websites, looking for resources for those who want to report fraud, waste and abuse in how federal stimulus funds are being used. Iowa's website on the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act scored well in the report but wasn't in the top tier of especially "whistleblower-friendly websites."

After a one-on-one meeting with Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Chuck Grassley said she wasn't as "aggressive" and "obnoxious" as he expected.

I wasn't pleased by the changes Leonard Boswell advocated in the climate change bill.

I warned about the dangers of a fake public health insurance option, such as regional co-ops. I also suggested ways activists could support the public option.

Health Care for America Now ran tv ads supporting the public option in 10 states, including Iowa.

National polling continued to show massive support for a real public health insurance option.

This post contained constructive criticism of the Cash for Clunkers program, for which Representative Bruce Braley was a lead sponsor.

I wasn't convinced by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's "creative analogy" comparing climate-change skeptics with opponents of genetically-modified foods.

The House approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey). I reviewed the strongest arguments for and against the climate change bill and concluded that it wasn't strong enough to be worth passing. Iowa's delegation split on party lines, with all three Democrats voting for it. Representative Dave Loebsack got an amendment into the bill "to the bill will amend the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program so that building owners receiving disaster assistance can use the disaster assistance funds to leverage additional or matching funds to make energy efficient improvements to their homes and businesses."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued reports detailing the problems with the "health care status quo" across the country.

Smart Growth America released a review on how wisely states were spending transportation money from the stimulus bill. Iowa got good marks.

Norm Coleman finally conceded to Al Franken.

Braley, Harkin, House Populists push for Wall Street transaction fees

desmoinesdem — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:58:05 GMT

Members of the House Populist Caucus, chaired by Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01), held a press conference on Thursday to endorse a bill that would "assess a small fee on Wall Street day traders to pay down the national deficit and invest in America's middle class families."

Details about the bill are after the jump.
From a press release Braley's office issued on December 3:

"One of the founding principles of the Populist Caucus is to fight for working families by creating and retaining good paying jobs," Braley said. "For the past eight years, our economic policies have put the interests of Wall Street ahead of the interests of Main Street Americans. The reasons we introduced the Wall Street transaction tax today is because we need to get our economy working again for Middle Class families. That's who we're fighting for every day and that is who our federal government should be fighting for."
"Our nation continues to be crippled by a struggling economy which has resulted in an astronomical unemployment rate of 10.2 percent," [Representative Peter] DeFazio [OR-04] said. "The American taxpayers bailed out Wall Street during a crisis brought on by reckless speculation in the financial markets. This legislation will force Wall Street to do their part and put people displaced by that crisis back to work." [...]
The legislation will assess a small securities fee on the following transactions:
· Stock transactions (tax rate will be 1/4 of 1 percent--0.25%),
· Futures contracts to buy or sell a specified commodity of standardized quality at a certain date in the future, at a market determined price (tax rate will be 0.02%),
· Swaps between two firms on certain benefits of one party's financial instrument for those of the other party's financial instrument (tax rate will be 0.02%)
· Credit default swaps where a contract is swapped through a series of payments in exchange for a payoff if a credit instrument (typically a bond or loan) goes into default (fails to pay) (tax rate will be 0.02%),
· And options, which are contracts between a buyer and a seller that gives the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to buy or to sell a particular asset on or before the option's expiration time, at an agreed price (at the rate of the underlying asset).
To ensure the tax is appropriately targeted to speculators and has no impact on the average investor and pension funds, the tax will be refunded for:
1) tax-favored retirement accounts,
2) education savings accounts,
3) health savings accounts,
4) mutual funds and,
5) the first $100,000 of transactions annually that are not already exempted.

Braley spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki told me that as of this morning, the bill has 21 co-sponsors, 14 of whom belong to the Populist Caucus.

The bill has at least one champion in the Senate. HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin appeared with Populist Caucus members at yesterday's press conference. I don't know whether any Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee is willing to push for this measure.

I haven't seen any reaction yet from the Obama administration. Supporting this bill should be an easy call, but my hunch is that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and senior presidential adviser Larry Summers will have Wall Street's back on this one. Here's hoping I am wrong about that.

What a real public option would look like

desmoinesdem — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:12:57 GMT

BruceMcF breaks it down for you:

So: (1) Public Choice
"No Taxation without Representation". Every single person facing an individual mandate must be provided with the choice of a publicly administered plan. Otherwise the government is forcing the citizen to pay without the elected representatives of the citizen controlling the spending.
You want to put a trigger on the public option. Fine, except the exact same trigger applies to the individual mandate.
You want to restrict access to the public option to some smaller group? Fine, except the same restriction applies to the individual mandate.
The system is not politically legitimate if it requires payment to for-profit commercial corporations.
(2) Robust
It cannot be lumbered down with any restrictions not faced by private insurers.
State by state public options? Really? You are really prepared to restrict the corporations to firms with no commercial activity across state lines? If they are free standing state by state public options, it has to be state by state for profit corporations. Oh, not allowing [United Healthcare] into the exchanges defeats the purpose of lining private pockets at the public expense? Yeah, kind of thought so.

BruceMcF has long been one of my favorite transportation bloggers and has written great stuff on health care reform too, including Axelrod: Government by Consent of the Corporation. His home blog is Burning the Midnight Oil, but he frequently cross-posts his work at Progressive Blue, Daily Kos, My Left Wing, Docudharma, and the Hillbilly Report.

Speaking of real and fake public options, Timothy Noah explains "the sorry history" of triggers enacted by Congress, and slinkerwink has suggestions and talking points to use when contacting House Progressives about health care reform. I still think it's worth urging Populist Caucus members as well as Progressives to insist on a real, not fake or triggered, public option in the final health care bill.

Bruce Braley (IA-01) leads the Populist Caucus, and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) both belong to the caucus. All of them have advocated for the public option, but to my knowledge none has pledge to vote down any bill that lacks a public option.

For those interested in the nitty gritty of legislative wrangling, David Waldman ponders what might happen if the Senate Finance Committee members can't agree and consequently fail to report out a health care bill.

Reject Baucus' bill and take away his gavel

desmoinesdem — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:11:32 GMT

I'm no negotiating expert, but I know that if you're not willing to walk away from a bad deal, no one will take your demands seriously.

Americans overwhelmingly want a public health insurance option and need that option for any number of reasons. Who you are and where you live strongly affects the kind of health insurance and health care you receive. Most Americans live in communities where one or two private companies dominate the health insurance market. Rural residents often have very limited access to health care providers. People of color also are shortchanged by our current system.

Despite all these problems, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has done his best in recent weeks to show that The Onion was right about him eight years ago. Baucus has continued to pursue a bipartisan agreement on health care containing a fake public option.

It's time to cut Baucus off, and a great idea floated by Iowa's own Senator Tom Harkin offers part of the solution. (continues after the jump)
Ezra Klein underscored how ridiculous Baucus' approach is given the current balance of power in the Senate:

This is who is in the room helping Baucus put together his bill. Olympia Snowe, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad. In a Senate of 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans, the health-care reform bill is being written by three centrist Democrats, one centrist Republicans, and two conservative Republicans. And until last week, Orrin Hatch was in the room, too.
This is not the Finance Committee's bill. This is the Max Baucus Committee's Bill. And there's not a liberal -- or even a Democrat traditionally associated with health-care policy -- working on it. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of Finance's health subcommittee, is not included in the negotiations. Nor is Ron Wyden, who has written the Healthy Americans Act. Chuck Schumer isn't in the room, nor is John Kerry, Debbie Stabenow or Maria Cantwell.

I've been hoping President Barack Obama would put an end to the dangerous Baucus/Grassley dealmaking by threatening to veto any health care bill that did not meet certain conditions. Instead, the White House continues to signal that regional co-operatives or some other fake public option might be acceptable. In other words, Obama is desperate to sign something, anything, this year so that he can declare victory on health care reform.

In this context, it's not surprising that Baucus' bill has dropped the public option, and House "Blue Dogs" have succeeded in weakening what was already a weak public option in the House draft bill. We are now looking at a Massachusetts-style system, with a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and no public option to compete with the overpriced private products. That won't solve our problems and would be a political disaster for Democrats.

Fortunately, House Progressives may be willing to reject this bad deal and start the process over next year. Key features of the House bill wouldn't have gone into effect until 2013 anyway. It's worth waiting a year for a better bill. Obama knows this is make or break for his presidency, and he will start twisting Blue Dog arms if he knows the Progressive Caucus is serious about not getting rolled.

Senate Democrats should vote down the Baucus-Grassley compromise in the Finance Committee or on the Senate floor. Then they should implement a new rule suggested by Senator Harkin:

"Every two years the caucus could have a secret ballot on whether a chairman should continue, yes or no," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. "If the 'no's win, [the chairman's] out.
"I've heard it talked about before," he added. [...]
Some senators suggest privately that Baucus might be more open to persuasion if his chairmanship is subject to regular votes.
Another senior Democratic senator endorsed Harkin's suggestion but declined to speak on the record for fear of angering Baucus.
"Put me down as a yes, but if you use my name I'll send a SWAT team after you," said the lawmaker when asked about a biennial referendum on chairmen.

Baucus has been bought and paid for by industries that want to block real reform, and his fellow Senate Democrats are the only people who can strip him of the power to block real reform. If they reject his bill and take away his gavel, there's a chance of passing a strong bill next year through the reconciliation process. This approach carries some political risks and will force Obama to be more engaged in the Congressional negotiations than he has so far. But that is better than letting Baucus ruin our best chance for health care reform in a generation.

A real public health insurance option is still worth fighting for, next year if necessary. It's more important to get this right than to get something on the president's desk by October.

P.S. Why is the Populist Caucus led by Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) still AWOL in the debate over what kind of public option makes it into this bill? Braley promised that health care reform would be a top priority of the Populist Caucus.

Populist Caucus, allies speak out for fair trade

desmoinesdem — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:41:14 GMT

Members of Bruce Braley's Populist Caucus were among 55 House members who took a stand against the Panama Free Trade Agreement today in an open letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

After the jump I've posted the full text of the letter, along with the list of those who signed. Here is an excerpt:

We believe trade agreements must meet basic standards protecting labor rights, environmental standards, food safety regulations, financial regulations, and taxation transparency. We are disturbed by Panama's tax haven status and the use of this tax haven by U.S. financial institutions like AIG and Citibank. The U.S. is currently contemplating stricter financial regulations to protect our economy, but the Panama FTA will likely weaken any such effort. We believe the Panama FTA should be renegotiated in order to address these outstanding issues.
President Obama campaigned effectively on changing the trade model and his message resonated with the American people. We believe the Panama FTA falls far short of that commitment and it is not in the best interests of the American worker, our economy, or our country. We share your commitment to fighting for working families and believe you can be an effective advocate for our cause.

The House members who signed the letter mostly belong to the Populist Caucus, House Trade Working Group, and/or the Progressive Caucus. I noticed that Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) joined Braley (IA-01) among the 17 Populist Caucus members who signed. Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among six Populist Caucus members who did not sign. One Republican signed: Walter Jones (NC-03).

"Defending American competitiveness by fighting for fair trade principles" is one of the six key priorities for the Populist Caucus.

Later today, a U.S. Trade Representative announced that the Panama agreement "won't be submitted to Congress for approval until President Barack Obama offers a new 'framework' for trade." At Open left, David Sirota interpreted that announcement as a victory (albeit possibly only temporary) for the Populist Caucus, its allies and the AFL-CIO, which had already come out against the Panama agreement.

We'll see whether the White House is willing to deviate significantly from the NAFTA model in this agreement. Whatever the final outcome, I am glad to see a large House contingent taking a stand for fair trade.

I still hope the Populist Caucus will get more involved in the health care debate.
Note: the House members who signed this letter include 17 of the 23 founding members of the House Populist Caucus--all except for Leonard Boswell (IA-03); Joe Courtney (CT-02); Mazie Hirono (HI-02); Linda Sanchez (CA-39); Peter Welch (VT-AL); and John Yarmuth (KY-03).

May 21, 2009
Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
As representatives of the Populist Caucus, House Trade Working Group, Progressive Caucus and other Members of the House Democratic Caucus, we believe this is a historic opportunity to push forward a new trade model that will benefit workers and businesses. We seek your support to work with the Administration to establish a new approach to trade.
We believe the Panama Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is not a new model on trade and does not represent the kind of change the American people are seeking. After eight years of a failed Bush free trade agenda, the current demise of our economy, and an ensuing massive increase in unemployment, it is difficult to justify to our constituents the passage of another badly flawed trade agreement. We fear passage of this agreement will set us back down the misguided course of past trade deals.
As you know all too well, the current recession has hammered the American family. Unemployment, now at 8.9%, is expected to rise even more. Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost. It is noteworthy that the Panama FTA negotiations were completed in 2006, a full year before the recession began. Given the rapid demise of our economy, we are concerned that the FTAs negotiated under the prior Administration and in a different economic outlook, are out of step with the needs of an economic recovery. This disconnect between the Panama FTA and the current needs to restore our economy will make any vote on this FTA difficult to justify. Indeed, it appears to be the opposite of the "change" theme Americans voted for in the last two elections.
We believe trade agreements must meet basic standards protecting labor rights, environmental standards, food safety regulations, financial regulations, and taxation transparency. We are disturbed by Panama's tax haven status and the use of this tax haven by U.S. financial institutions like AIG and Citibank. The U.S. is currently contemplating stricter financial regulations to protect our economy, but the Panama FTA will likely weaken any such effort. We believe the Panama FTA should be renegotiated in order to address these outstanding issues.
President Obama campaigned effectively on changing the trade model and his message resonated with the American people. We believe the Panama FTA falls far short of that commitment and it is not in the best interests of the American worker, our economy, or our country. We share your commitment to fighting for working families and believe you can be an effective advocate for our cause.
In light of the recession, we believe it is in the best interest of the United States for the President to work with Congress to chart a new course for trade. There should be a public discussion involving not just the United States Trade Representative but also Members of Congress about how to achieve a balanced trade agenda in difficult economic times. We ask for an open, honest dialogue and a new trade model and would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
Mike Arcuri
Tammy Baldwin
John Boccieri
Rick Boucher
Bruce Braley
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Kathy Dahlkemper
Peter DeFazio
Rosa DeLauro
Mike Doyle
Donna Edwards
Keith Ellison
Bob Filner
Marcia Fudge
Gene Green
Raul Grijalva
Phil Hare
Alcee Hastings
Maurice Hinchey
Hank Johnson
Walter B. Jones
Steve Kagen
Marcy Kaptur
Dale Kildee
Mary Jo Kilroy
Dennis Kucinich
Barbara Lee
Dan Lipinski
David Loebsack
Stephen Lynch
Jim Marshall
Eric Massa
James McGovern
Mike Michaud
Grace Napolitano
John Olver
Frank Pallone
Tom Perriello
Chellie Pingree
Tim Ryan
Jan Schakowsky
Mark Schauer
Carol Shea-Porter
Brad Sherman
Heath Shuler
Louise Slaughter
Bart Stupak
Betty Sutton
Gene Taylor
Paul Tonko
Pete Visclosky
Maxine Waters
Charlie Wilson
Lynn Woolsey

Time for Braley's Populist Caucus to speak up on health care

desmoinesdem — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:47:22 GMT

Congress is getting to work on the details of health care reform, and a major battleground will be whether to include a strong public health insurance option for all Americans.

Republicans like Senator Chuck Grassley are revving up their scare tactics about "government-run" health care. Coalitions of Democrats who back a public option are also taking shape in the House and the Senate.

The new Populist Caucus led by Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) has yet to weigh in on the specifics of health care reform. That needs to change soon if Braley is serious about turning this caucus into a voice for the middle class in the House.

More thoughts on this subject are after the jump.
Braley rolled out the Populist Caucus with 23 founding members in February. The accompanying press release listed six key priorities for the group, including "Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans."

Speaking to Chris Weigant of the Huffington Post in March, Braley said the Populist Caucus differed from the Progressive Caucus because

the Progressive Caucus tends to focus on a broad range of foreign and domestic policies. The Populist Caucus is the only caucus in Congress devoted solely to addressing middle class economic issues.

When Weigant asked whether the Populist Caucus planned to endorse or introduce specific legislation, Braley responded,

We're going to be increasingly active on legislation and plan to be outspoken on these core economic issues. I think one issue you'll see a lot of activity from the Populist Caucus is on trade. Irresponsible trade policies can cost Americans jobs, and we'll be standing up for fair trade. Another big issue we all want to influence is the healthcare debate. Middle class families are being squeezed from a thousand directions these days, but one of the biggest issues is the rising cost of healthcare. Many companies are reducing benefits in the midst of this recession, and families lose coverage when breadwinners become unemployed. The healthcare debate is beginning, and I think we're well-positioned to influence it.

The health care debate is now underway. Four caucuses representing House Democrats have sent an open letter to President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders advocating "a robust public health insurance plan like Medicare" as part of health care reform. I haven't received any statement from Braley's office regarding the question of a public option, and I couldn't find anything on the Populist Caucus pages of Braley's official website either.

I don't meant to knock Braley. He's a hard-working representative, and I like what he's doing on a wide range of issues. During the first week of May alone he introduced a bill on school nutrition and helped broker a compromise on a bill that would "take older, gas-guzzling vehicles off the road and spur new car sales by providing consumers with a $3,000 to $7,500 incentive to buy more fuel-efficient cars or trucks."

That said, Braley chose to create a Populist Caucus and promised that it would influence the conversation on health care. Rightly so, because access to affordable health care is one of the biggest problems facing the American middle class, and this year's health care reform debate may result in one of the most important bills passed this decade.

My best guess for why the Populist Caucus has not yet jumped into the health care debate is that its 23 members do not agree on the most contentious issue: whether the government should make a public health insurance option available to all Americans.

Quite a few founding Populist Caucus members also belong to the Progressive Caucus, which strongly backs a public option. On the other hand, some Populist Caucus members, including Braley, belong to the New Democratic Coalition. The New Democrats have a reputation for being sympathetic to corporate interests, and at least two New Democrats have expressed concern about the impact a public health insurance program would have on private insurers.

Although finding consensus in the Populist Caucus may not be easy, the group needs to take a position on key aspects of health care reform. Braley said it himself: the rising cost of health care is "one of the biggest issues" facing the middle class.

I am seeking comment on this matter from Braley's office and will follow up when I learn more about where the Populist Caucus stands on a public health insurance option.

UPDATE: Open Left user noonan infers from Steve Kagen's website that he is against a public option. If his reading is correct, that's one of the 23 Populist Caucus members against a public option.

Apparently Kagen thinks transparency and letting people shop around for the best deal on health care will solve our problems. Frankly, that is a joke. If you have a medical emergency, there is no time to shop around and figure out which hospital offers the best deal. Until you need medical care, no one ever really knows what their health insurance will cover. That's why millions of people with health insurance end up in debt after having a medical crisis.

Harkin and Loebsack support public option in health care reform

desmoinesdem — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Congress will begin making important decisions on health care policy very soon. The Senate Finance Committee began drafting a health care bill a few days ago.

I was glad to see two Iowans among the representatives and senators who urged colleagues this week to include a strong public option in any health care reform plan.

After the jump I have more on where Congressman Dave Loebsack and Senator Tom Harkin stand on health care, as well as the benefits of creating a public health insurance option.

UPDATE: Thanks to Populista for reminding me that all Iowa Democrats in Congress (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack, Leonard Boswell and Tom Harkin) have signed on to support Health Care for America Now's core principles for health care reform.
On April 28, four House caucuses sent a joint letter to President Obama and Congressional leaders to make clear that "our support for enacting legislation this year to guarantee affordable health care for all firmly hinges on the inclusion of a robust public health insurance plan like Medicare." Click here to read the press release issued by the Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Asian Pacific American Caucus. Excerpt:

"The American people are united in declaring that our health care system is broken, and that we need to fix it," said Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Co-Chair of the CPC. "With this letter, more than a 100 Members of Congress are sending a message that we share the public's outrage, and that we are committed to confronting this problem and developing a health care system that doesn't leave anyone out. That's why we need to make certain that any final healthcare reform legislation includes the option of a public health insurance plan to ensure that everyone has access to high quality, affordable care."
"For too long, insurance companies have dictated the quality, quantity, and accessibility of healthcare to the American people," said Congressman Mike Honda, Chair of Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). "A robust public health insurance plan will ensure true competition with those companies that reap egregious profits, and will present the opportunity to make deep, lasting changes in our healthcare system. A public plan will also provide a framework to eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities in some of the most underserved communities."

Representative Loebsack is the only Iowan in the Progressive Caucus, whose leaders went on record a few weeks ago saying most members of the caucus will not vote for any health care bill that does not contain a public option. Loebsack was less categorical in a statement his office sent me on April 22:

"When it comes to health care, there are many options and solutions on the table. I support a strong public option so that we can increase access to quality, affordable health care," said Congressman Loebsack. "There are too many people drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, and we all need to work together to move the conversation forward. That's why I think forums and talking to my constituents is so vital to crafting a comprehensive healthcare plan."

Loebsack's position is sensible, but I am glad to see the leaders of four caucuses signal that their members will not settle for health care reform like the program that has failed in Massachusetts.

I hope that Congressman Bruce Braley's Populist Caucus will take a similar stand. "Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care to all Americans" is one of the six main goals Braley has set for the caucus. Another Populist Caucus goal is "protecting consumers," and a public health insurance plan would give consumers more protection from the whims of private insurers. Moreover, quite a few founding Populist Caucus members also belong to the Progressive Caucus.

On the other hand, some Populist Caucus members also belong to the New Democrats caucus, which leans toward the pro-corporate position on some issues. That may make it hard for the Populist Caucus to reach consensus on health care. I am seeking comment on this from Braley's office. I would hate to see the Populist Caucus stay on the sidelines during this year's critical health care debate.

A coalition supporting a public option is taking shape in the Senate as well. On Wednesday 16 senators who caucus with Democrats, including Tom Harkin, signed a letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus:

"As members of key committees and leaders on health care issues, we write to support a public plan option as a core component of this reform," the letter said. "There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all Americans at affordable prices for taxpayers."
A public plan option "would provide competition to the sometimes dysfunctional private insurance market," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who originated the letter, said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday. [...]
Brown said that even with strong insurance market reforms designed to prevent health plans from denying coverage or charging sky-high premiums to people with preexisting conditions, a public plan remains necessary. "Insurance companies have a reputation of staying one step ahead of the sheriff," he said.
Republicans, along with healthcare and business interests, oppose the public plan option. The contend that the plan will muscle out private insurers by cutting payment rates to medical providers in order to charge lower premiums, and will lead to the federal government dominating the insurance market.

One Democratic senator, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, came out this week against any public option as part of health care reform. Jason Rosenbaum of Health Care for America Now has more on Nelson's talking points and ties to the insurance industry. Fortunately, we don't need Nelson's vote, because President Obama is committed to making health care reform part of the budget reconciliation process (so it cannot be filibustered).

I am glad to see Harkin standing with the Democrats pushing health care reform in the right direction.

Please share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Moveon.org is holding an "emergency online briefing" about health care reform, featuring Howard Dean:

Emergency Online Briefing with Dr. Dean
Monday, May 4, 9pm Eastern
Hosted on MoveOn.org's web site at:
http://www.moveon.org/drdean/?...
Last time Democrats tried to pass comprehensive healthcare reform, it failed. And it failed in part because the opposition was better organized and spread a bunch of lies that progressives weren't prepared to rebut.
It's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen again. We need all hands on deck, well-armed with the critical information, and motivated to keep the right from blocking real change. Dr. Dean will give us an update and inside look at the battle for real healthcare reform -- and the key actions we'll take to achieve a historic victory.
With an important Senate committee meeting on Tuesday to start shaping legislation, plus the right wing's escalating attacks, this couldn't be more urgent.
I'll be part of the emergency briefing, and I really hope you can join me at this crucial moment. Join us online Monday night at 9pm Eastern -- that's 8pm Central, 7pm Mountain, and 6pm Pacific -- this way everyone in the country can join us at the same time.
CLICK HERE ON MONDAY AT 9PM EASTERN TO JOIN US ONLINE

SECOND UPDATE: As I noted upthread, all Iowa Democrats in Congress (Braley, Loebsack, Boswell and Harkin) have signed on to support Health Care for America Now's core principles for health care reform. I am glad to see some Democrats reminding leadership that a public option is a high priority.

More details on Braley's Populist Caucus

desmoinesdem — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:09:35 GMT

Chris Bowers wrote a good post on where Representative Bruce Braley's new Populist Caucus fits in among House Democrats. The whole piece is worth reading, but here's an excerpt:

Clearly, there is a strong tendency toward the Progressive caucus among the Populists, even though they were organized by a New Democrat. Further, Progressive punch puts the median lifetime score on "crucial votes" for this group at 55.5 of 256 (between [Joe] Courtney at 54 and [Dave] Loebsack at 57) in the Democratic caucus, placing it decidedly in the left-wing of the party.
[...]
Notably, the Populists are also heavy on the class of 2006, as 14 of the 20 members listed by the Huffington Post were first elected to Congress that year (and Massa came within an inch of being a 15th that year). Only Boswell, DeFazio, Filner Sanchez and Schakowsky were first elected to Congress before 2006. As such, while it displayed the same fractured tendencies of all ideological caucuses across the three bailout votes, the Populist Caucus appears to be primarily a caucus of progressive sophomore Representatives. This is particularly interesting since the class of 2006 was supposed to be a conservative dominated class ushered in by then -DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel. Now, the progressive members of that class appear to have organized a new caucus for themselves.

I didn't realize until I read this page on Braley's website that Tom Harkin chaired a House Populist Caucus during the 1980s:

In February of 1983, a group of 14 Midwest Democratic members of Congress founded the first known "Populist Caucus" with the goal to "fight for such economic goals as fairer taxes, lower interest rates and cheaper energy."
The original Populist Caucus was chaired by then-Rep. Tom Harkin (D-IA). The other members in the caucus were Berkley Bedell (D-IA); Lane Evans (D-IL); Tom Daschle (D-SD); Al Gore (D-TN); Timothy Penny (D-MN); Jim Weaver (D-OR); Byron Dorgan (D-ND); Harold Volkmer (D-MO); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bob Wise (D-WV); Frank McCloskey (D-IN); Bill Richardson (D-NM); Gerry Sikorski (D-MN); and Mike Synar (D-OK).
The first Populist Caucus dissolved by the mid-1990's.

Several members of that original Populist Caucus had been elected to the U.S. Senate or had left the House for other reasons by the early 1990s.

Side note: Bill Richardson once identified himself as a populist? Wow.

The new Populist Caucus platform is on Braley's website:

1. Fighting for working families and the middle class by creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America, providing fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and ensuring American workers have secure, solvent retirement plans.
2. Cutting taxes for the middle class and establishing an equitable tax structure.
3. Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans.
4. Ensuring quality primary education for all American children, and affordable college education for all who want it.
5. Defending American competiveness by fighting for fair trade principles.
6. Protecting consumers, so that Americans can have faith in the safety and effectiveness of the products they purchase

I will be interested to see how the Populist Caucus weighs in on the coming debates over health care, workers' rights and tax policy.

A full list of the 23 founding Populist Caucus members is after the jump.
Members of the Populist Caucus::

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA), Chair;
Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), Vice-Chair;
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Vice-Chair;
Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH), Vice-Chair;
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA); Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN); Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT); Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN); Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA); Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL); Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI); Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA); Rep. Steve Kagan (D-WI); Rep. David Loebsack (D-IA); Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY); Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME); Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA); Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA); Rep. Jan Schakowski (D-IL); Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH); Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY); Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT); and Rep. John Yarmouth (D-KY).

Braley ready to roll out House Populist Caucus

desmoinesdem — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) announced plans to form a Populist Caucus in December. According to the Huffington Post, Braley plans to roll out the new caucus this week. (Hat tip David Sirota.)

Huffington Post lists most of the 21 founding members, who come from all over the country. There are moderates like Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Phil Hare (IL-17), progressives like Keith Ellison (MN-05) and Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and netroots heroes like Eric Massa (NY-29) and Pete DeFazio (OR-04). According to Huffington Post, Braley would be open to having Republicans join the caucus, although only Democrats have signed up so far.

Braley's letter inviting colleagues to join the caucus listed these key points of the Populist Caucus agenda:

1. Fighting for working families and the middle class through the establishment of an equitable tax structure, fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and secure, solvent retirement plans.
2. Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care to all Americans.
3. Ensuring accessible, quality primary education for all American children, and affordable college education for all who want it.
4. Protecting consumers, so that Americans can once again have faith in the safety and effectiveness of the products they purchase.
5. Defending American competitiveness by fighting for fair trade principles.
6. Creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America.

Huffington Post also had this encouraging news:

The Populist Caucus will make its first major play by advocating for the inclusion of a "Buy American" provision in the stimulus package.

Bring it on. The "Buy American" provision is important if we want the stimulus to create jobs in the U.S. rather than taxpayer-funded outsourcing.

Though only starting his second term in Congress, Braley is rising fast. He landed a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee after aggressively advocating for Henry Waxman to replace John Dingell as its chairman. He is also one of three vice-chairs of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Bleeding Heartland Year in Review: Iowa politics in 2008

desmoinesdem — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I've linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I'll do a review of Bleeding Heartland's 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.
January 2008

The Iowa caucuses dominated the beginning of the year. In the ninth and final diary in my series on how the Iowa caucuses work, I responded to arguments in defense of what I consider flaws in caucus system.

I supported John Edwards and was impressed by some of Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics, but on the whole January 3 was obviously Barack Obama's night.

Chris Woods posted some early analysis of the Iowa caucus results. Barack Obama won 41 counties, John Edwards won 29 counties, Hillary Clinton won 25 counties and four counties were ties.

I was frustrated by my failure to secure a third delegate for Edwards in my precinct.

Chris Woods lamented the Iowa mainstream media's lack of interest in political blogs.

Iowa Republicans were already downbeat about their election prospects, having failed to recruit a credible candidate against U.S. Senator Tom Harkin. Republicans in the state legislature fell behind Iowa Democrats in fundraising.

I was hoping the legislature would put some balance in our state's transportation planning, but the powers that be wanted to spend virtually all the new money on road-building.

Secretary of State Mike Mauro did us all a favor by proposing a bill to require paper ballots in every Iowa precinct.

I took a stab at explaining why Iowa has never elected a woman governor or sent a woman to Congress.

Yet another study confirmed that runoff from conventional farms in Iowa is a major contributor to the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.

Former Governor Tom Vilsack called for more action to combat global warming.

Noneed4thneed called for more leadership from Chet Culver on conserving energy and making Iowa the renewable energy capital.

A report by the American Wind Energy Association showed Iowa falling to fourth in wind power.

Environmental advocates arranged for world-class expert testimony before the Iowa Utilities Board against a proposal to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

Ed Fallon announced his candidacy for Congress, and I explained why I planned to support him against six-term incumbent Leonard Boswell in the third district primary.

I was a respondent in a long poll commissioned by Boswell's campaign, which tested some of Fallon's messages against the incumbent.

I called for fixing the problems with the Iowa caucuses and learned that the Nevada Democratic Party adopted slightly better caucus rules than ours. (Unfortunately, precinct chairs in Nevada were poorly-trained, and the caucuses were a fiasco in many precincts.)

I was disappointed when Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, even though I knew he had no chance of winning the nomination.

February 2008

What started out as a routine illness put me in the hospital for a week. Things might have taken a very bad turn if I had waited longer before seeing a doctor. I told the story here: My health insurance may have saved my life.

Noneed4thneed discussed the connection between anti-tax zealots and local roads that are in terrible condition.

Renewable Rich sounded the alarm about attempts by state legislators to define nuclear power as a form of renewable energy. Fortunately, that bill was not approved.

The Iowa Commission on the Status of Women supported a bill that would make it easier for working mothers to breastfeed. Unfortunately, the bill did not make it out of committee in the Iowa House.

Senator Tom Harkin stayed neutral in the Clinton-Obama contest and said the Democratic Party should eliminate superdelegates from the presidential nominating process.

I was already getting tired of safe incumbent Harkin's repeated fundraising appeals, and there were dozens more to come before the year was over.

Democracy for America endorsed Ed Fallon in the third district Congressional primary.

Boswell was among 21 House Democrats who worked with Republicans to do George Bush's bidding on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But he stepped up his constituent outreach by helping my suburb, Windsor Heights, secure a unique zip code.

Fourth district Congressional candidate Kurt Meyer started posting diaries occasionally at Bleeding Heartland.

Secretary of State Mauro ran into opposition from Chet Culver over his efforts to require that all voting machines use paper ballots. However, the governor soon got behind a plan to eliminate touchscreen voting machines.

I argued that a new law requiring all Iowa children to be tested for lead is worth the cost, not only because lead harms children. It seems that exposure to lead may diminish the functioning of the aging brain decades later.

Iowa joined California's lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency "for its legal action which denied states' rights to adopt vehicle emissions standards to regulate global warming emissions."

Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy paid a fine to settle an ethics investigation.

Noneed4thneed alerted us to a corporate-funded advertising campaign targeting five first-term Iowa House Democrats. (Four of the five won re-election in November, but Art Staed lost by a heartbreaking 13 votes.)

I reflected on a year without Steve Gilliard, whose News Blog I used to read daily.

March 2008

Governor Culver rejected federal funds that had strings attached to require "abstinence only" sex education.

The Republican 501(c)4 group Iowa Future Fund ran untruthful ads against Culver without disclosing its donors, but Iowa law does not require political ads to be true.

In a party-line vote, the Iowa House rejected a Republican effort to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage up for debate.

Tom Harkin introduced the Complete Streets Act of 2008 in the Senate.

Congressman Steve King of the fifth district made his infamous comment about how terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Obama were elected president.

The National Republican Congressional Committee's list of top House targets did not include any of Iowa's Democratic-held seats.

Ed Fallon came out against new coal-fired power plants proposed for Marshalltown and Waterloo, while Boswell declined to take a position on the issue.

Boswell used his franking privilege to send glossy campaign-style flyers to voters in the third district, and the Des Moines Register called him on it.

Boswell defended his vote for the bankruptcy bill, which was unpopular with many liberal Democrats.

Boswell also changed his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and touted his record on supporting the middle class.

A national LGBT rights group endorsed Fallon.

Boswell's campaign sent out a mass e-mail saying Fallon is "no Democrat."

I explained why I thought Fallon would be a more effective representative than Boswell.

Fourth district Congressional candidate William Meyers started posting diaries here and continued to do so throughout the primary campaign.

Noneed4thneed encouraged Bleeding Heartland readers to support first-term Democrats in the Iowa legislature who were targets of a corporate-funded advertising campaign.

A report from Families USA estimated how many Iowans die prematurely because they lack health insurance.

I wrote about the disparities in c-section rates in Iowa, depending on where a woman lives and in which hospital she births.

Speaking of babies, I gave some reasons to use cloth diapers.

April 2008

A Polk County judge ordered Secretary of State Mauro to stop providing voter information in languages other than English, proving that the English-only bill Governor Tom Vilsack signed in 2002 was more than symbolic.

Chet Culver signed the law banning touchscreen voting machines in Iowa.

Our state's Republican representatives in the U.S. House, Steve King and Tom Latham, voted against a federal bill on verified voting.

After reviewing voter records, the Des Moines Register concluded that very few ineligible voters participated in the Iowa caucuses.

The U.S. House approved a "plain language" bill sponsored by Congressman Bruce Braley of the first district.

I discussed how much money in earmarks each member of Iowa's Congressional delegation secured in 2007.

The Iowa legislature approved a major new transportation bill without putting additional funds into public transit or stipulating that road money be spent on fixing existing infrastructure.

I urged Culver to veto a bill seeking more study of the livestock odor problem instead of action, but he signed it.

The legislature also approved a ban on smoking in most public places, with a few exemptions, such as casino gambling rooms.

Mrs panstreppon speculated about the political ambitions of Bruce Rastetter, a businessman and funder of the anti-Democratic 501(c)4 group Iowa Future Fund. The Iowa Future Fund had been running television ads attacking Chet Culver.

Mrs panstreppon also wrote about the new Republican 501(c)4 group Iowa Progress Project, which was created to replace the Iowa Future Fund.

The Des Moines Register razzed Culver for staying at Bill Knapp's Florida condo without paying the full market rental rate.

I wrote a four-part series on the Boswell campaign's efforts to question Fallon's ethics and explored the differences between Fallon and Boswell on farm issues.

Progressive Kick created an entertaining website highlighting Boswell's voting record in Congress.

Fallon blasted Boswell's vote for the Military Commissions Act, which gave the president the authority to determine what interrogation techniques are "torture."

Boswell's campaign sent out positive direct-mail pieces on the economy, Iraq and health care. His campaign also sent two direct-mail pieces in one week highlighting Fallon's support for Ralph Nader in 2000. I transcribed them here and here.

Polk County voters rejected a plan to borrow money to build a new courthouse.

A sign that the housing bubble had well and truly burst: Iowa's largest home-builder ceased operations and laid off its entire staff.

Mixed-use developments are good for people, business and the environment.

I weighed in on a local hot topic when Pizza Hut fired a Des Moines delivery driver who shot an alleged armed robber. (The restaurant chain does not allow drivers to carry guns.)

In honor of cesarean awareness month I wrote about how to avoid having an unnecessary surgical birth.

I advised readers to drink tap water, but not from plastic bottles and to avoid using baby bottles containing bisphenol-A.

On the last day of the month the Iowa Utilities Board approved an application to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

May 2008

I was extremely disappointed that the Democrats on the Iowa Utilities Board voted to approve a new coal-fired power plant.

I weighed in on why Hillary Clinton lost Iowa and eventually the nomination.

An article by Joe Trippi got me speculating on whether John Edwards should have stayed in the presidential race longer.

Tom Harkin gave some reasons to be concerned about John McCain, and I added ten more reasons not to vote for the Republican nominee.

I discussed why John and Jackie Norris were important early Obama supporters in Iowa and pondered which presidential candidate had the best celebrity supporters.

The removal of Lurita Doan as head of the General Services Administration reminded me of one of Bruce Braley's finest moments in Congress.

Governor Culver signed into law a bill that establishes a statewide 1-cent sales tax for school infrastructure.

Prevention First discussed the Healthy Families project's successful attempt to persuade state legislators to increase funding for family planning.

Sadly, no prominent Iowa Democrat stood up for repealing Iowa's English-only law.

I welcomed the prospect of a court challenge against the smoking ban exemption granted to casinos.

A Des Moines Register report on the Culver administration's alleged horsetrading with lobbyists was troubling.

In the fourth district primary, Becky Greenwald introduced herself to Democrats as "the girl next door."

As the third district Democratic primary race heated up, Fallon highlighted his early opposition to the war in Iraq and portrayed himself as "new energy for Iowa." He also urged Boswell (a Clinton supporter) to endorse Obama for president.

Fallon and Boswell clashed over ethanol, and Fallon called for a moratorium on new confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Boswell refused all invitations to debate Fallon.

He highlighted Al Gore's endorsement in direct mail and reminded voters that Fallon backed Nader.

Noneed4thneed argued that Boswell is not a loyal Democrat on the issues that matter most.

A 527 group bankrolled by a central Iowa developer accused Fallon of not protecting kids from sex offenders, not supporting ethanol producers, and not protecting kids from sex offenders (yes, there were two dishonest direct-mail pieces on Fallon's vote against residency restrictions for sex offenders).

The Southeast Iowa Lutheran Synod showed real leadership on global warming.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production published damning reports on conventional livestock production in the U.S.

An editorial by James Howard Kunstler on "Driving Toward Disaster" inspired this post on how to reduce Americans' vehicle-miles traveled by car.

In honor of asthma awareness month, I suggested 10 ways to combat asthma.

I paid tribute to my friend and fellow activist LaVon Griffieon on Mother's Day.

I gave parents some ideas about good books to read to children.

June 2008

June 3 was primary day in Iowa. I wrote up Boswell's final radio ad as well as his campaign's pathetic attempt to portray Fallon as unconcerned about meth.

I received two push-polls targeting Iowa House district 59 candidate Jerry Sullivan.

On election day Becky Greenwald easily won the four-way primary in the fourth Congressional district, while Boswell easily defeated Fallon in the third district. Mariannette Miller-Meeks narrowly won the Republican primary in the second district. Christopher Reed barely edged out two Republican rivals for the chance to get crushed by Tom Harkin.

Although Boswell wiped out Fallon by 20 points, I still believe the primary challenge was worth the effort. (At least my suburb got its own zip code.)

I urged unsuccessful fourth district candidate William Meyers not to make the mistake of running for Congress as an independent.

After Republicans nominated Miller-Meeks and Democrats nominated Greenwald, I again discussed some reasons why Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress.

I was confident that the third district Congressional race would not be competitive in the general election.

Dubuque and the Quad Cities moved one step close to passenger rail, thanks to work by Bruce Braley on the House Transportation Committee.

Activists for organized labor in Iowa were still mad at Chet Culver two months after he vetoed a bill that would have expanded collective bargaining rights.

I started making the case for supporting fifth district Democratic candidate Rob Hubler against "Jackass Award" winner Steve King.

Meanwhile, King chastised Scott McClellan for revealing misconduct inside the Bush White House.

Bleeding Heartland readers weighed in on potential future leaders in the Iowa Democratic Party.

Chris Woods examined the relationship between climate change and the Iowa floods and offered his take on how Iowa should pay for flood recovery.

I advocated an investigation into why the Des Moines levee that failed was never fixed after the 1993 floods.

I was taken aback by some conservative bloggers' views on flood relief and discussed our disagreements here and here.

Also in connection with the historic flooding, I urged readers not to use chlorine bleach to clean flood-damaged surfaces and not to use DEET-based mosquito repellents.

Noneed4thneed called attention to a report on how special interests spent big money to influence Iowa lawmakers.

The Iowa Values Fund seems not to have been good value for the taxpayers' money.

I disagreed with Iowa Utilities Board members who argued that meeting future electricity needs will require more coal or nuclear power.

Less than three weeks after winning the primary, Leonard Boswell voted with House Republicans to approve the new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Chris Woods explained what was wrong with the FISA "compromise."

Iowa Voter informed us that Chuck Grassley misled a town hall meeting audience on FISA. I linked to a bunch of commentaries on Obama and the FISA bill.

Opponents of the public smoking ban annoyed me when they called the new law "Soviet" or "fascist." Anyway, fears about the smoking ban's impact on business were unfounded.

The US Department of Agriculture in effect told honeybees to drop dead.

I learned from noneed4thneed that Marshall County looked into an ordinance to reduce the use of plastic bags.

After reading a diary by nyceve on how insurance companies punish women who have had cesarean births, I posted more advice for pregnant women seeking to reduce their risk of having a c-section.

I had some friendly advice for Obama volunteers on how to talk to non-supporters about Obama.

I posted my take on what any Democrat should do if you get push-polled or message-tested.

July 2008

News that the Obama campaign would be running the GOTV operation in Iowa made me worried about the potential effect on down-ticket Democrats. (Sadly, the election results validated several of my concerns.)

AlanF cross-posted this excellent piece on tips for volunteers who knock on doors for a political candidate.

I offered readers five reasons to get involved in state legislative races.

Senator Tom Harkin held an online voting contest to determine which Democratic statehouse candidates would receive contributions from his campaign fund.

Second district incumbent Dave Loebsack signed on to a letter urging Congress to address transportation issues in forthcoming legislation on climate change.

Relations between Senator Chuck Grassley and social conservatives in the Republican Party of Iowa had seen better days. Some of the tension stemmed from Grassley's inquiry into the tax-exempt status of some television-based ministries.

Leonard Boswell spent two weeks in the hospital after having surgery.

Becky Greenwald criticized fourth district incumbent Tom Latham for his loyal Republican voting record on Iraq and other issues.

I argued that Greenwald had a real chance to beat Latham, but the incumbent's money advantage would be her biggest obstacle.

Latham put up a statewide radio ad on the need for more off-shore oil drilling.

I contrasted Bruce Braley's record of delivering for his constituents with Steve King's.

King kept making offensive comments regularly and showed that he has no interest in genuine Congressional oversight.

SW Iowa Guy, a fifth district resident, gave us a window onto a conference call with King.

Joe Trippi signed on as a consultant to Rob Hubler's campaign.

A particularly horrible Associated Press story on how "Pet owners prefer McCain over Obama" inspired this post on confounding variables in opinion polling.

I posted Four comments and a question on the bad blood between Culver and organized labor.

Markos Moulitsas bashed me on the front page of Daily Kos.

I shared some thoughts on a new advocacy group seeking to repeal Iowa's public smoking ban.

Iowa environmental groups encouraged state regulators to make utilities do more on energy efficiency.

I went over some reasons to buy local.

One of my occasional posts on parenting laid out some reasons to "wear your baby".

August 2008

The revelation of John Edwards' affair stirred up conflicting feelings for me, as for many other former Edwards volunteers. I posted ten words I thought I would never write and a precinct captain's reflections on the Edwards story.

Edwards' political career may be over, but his presidential campaign's slogan lived on.

After getting more fundraising appeals from Tom Harkin (whose Republican challenger had only a few hundred bucks in the bank), I advocated a Use it or Lose it campaign to encourage safe Democratic incumbents to give more money to Democratic campaign committees.

Jason Rosenbaum asked readers to contact their representatives in Congress on health care.

Former Republican Congressman Jim Leach endorsed Obama for president. Leach later addressed the Democratic National Convention and headlined numerous "Republicans for Obama" events.

I suggested five ways Bleeding Heartland readers could help Rob Hubler's campaign against Steve King.

Giant chickens started showing up outside King's campaign events after he refused to debate Hubler.

I felt a special legislative session to deal with flood relief was warranted, but it never happened.

The Cedar Rapids-based Rebuild and Grow organization offered its own flood recovery action plan.

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership released a report on why property tax cuts are the wrong approach for flood relief.

Chuck Grassley made some shameful comments favorably contrasting flood victims in Iowa to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, conventional agriculture interests trumped environmental concerns on the state's flood recovery panel.

I posted some thoughts on how to reform the Democratic presidential nominating process.

I was impressed after attending one of the Obama campaign's outreach events for women.

I argued that Joe Biden would be a good surrogate for Obama.

A conservative baby-sitter helped introduce my five-year-old to the concept of political pluralism.

Comparing the presidential campaigns' ground games, I became convinced that Obama's small-town outreach would crush McCain's.

I posted a few questions on factors that could skew polls of the Obama-McCain race.

Caught up in the excitement of the Democratic National Convention, I finally gave some money to Obama's campaign.

I was immediately convinced that Sarah Palin would become McCain's gift to Democrats and noted that not all evangelical conservatives were thrilled with her candidacy.

Chet Culver criticized labor practices at the Agriprocessors meat-packing plant in a newspaper editorial, and the company responded.

I discussed another failure of employer-based health insurance as Whirlpool "filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to cut the medical benefits of thousands of retired Maytag workers."

A well-known political scientist at the University of Iowa took his own life while under criminal investigation for allegedly giving students higher grades in exchange for sexual favors.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa warned about a proposed Bush administration regulation that would restrict access to contraception. (The administration implemented that new rule in December.)

I was annoyed that my son's public school encouraged parents to buy Tyson chicken products.

Marvin Pomerantz, one of the most influential Iowa Republicans in the last 40 years, passed away.

September 2008

As September began I was thankful Iowa's first Congressional district was not competitive, freeing me of the responsibility to write most posts on the idiot who ran against Bruce Braley.

Obama started running radio ads on abortion in Iowa and several other states.

American007 posted this excellent summary of Sarah Palin's record in Wasilla.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer headlined Tom Harkin's Steak Fry, but Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge gave the most memorable speech of the day.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put IA-04 on the list of "emerging races" and declared IA-05 a "race to watch."

EMILY's List finally endorsed Becky Greenwald two days after I posted this piece wondering why they hadn't done so already.

The following week Greenwald went up on tv with a biographical ad that depleted her campaign coffers while doing little to boost her support.

Tom Latham's first television ad highlighted his big "achievement" on health care: co-sponsoring a bill that never made it out of committee. Greenwald's campaign exposed Latham's real record on health care in a press release, but unfortunately lacked the cash to put up a response on television.

I saw Latham's ad as proof that he expected a big Democratic wave and was positioning himself accordingly on traditionally "Democratic" issues.

Tom Harkin posted this diary on McCain's "crusade against renewable fuels."

There was plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when the U.S. House passed an energy bill designed to give Democrats cover on the offshore oil drilling issue.

I again encouraged readers to get involved in the Iowa statehouse races.

While the presidential election still looked like a tossup, I discussed what would happen if neither candidate received 270 electoral votes.

I made the case for voting early here and here.

Annoyed by the fundraising appeals I kept getting from safe Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell, I asked Bleeding Heartland readers to tell Boswell to give more to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I argued that Democrats can win and hold districts like Iowa's fifth. (Unfortunately, Hubler was not among the Democratic challengers who won deep-red Congressional seats this year, most notably in Maryland's first and Colorado's fourth districts.)

As a Democratic wave election appeared more likely, I wondered which Democratic pickups would shock us the most. (As it turned out, the most surprising pickup was probably in Virginia's fifth Congressional district. We also had surprisingly narrow losses in California's fourth and 44th districts.)

I thought labor unions were right to focus their political spending on the Iowa statehouse races and withhold contributions to Chet Culver's re-election campaign for now.

The Sierra Club created an online petition for Iowans urging energy providers to invest in clean sources for electricity generation, not coal.

Environmental groups called on utilities to do more to save energy.

Renewable Rich summarized a report showing how clean energy can create thousands of new jobs in Iowa.

I went over some ways to improve the Iowa caucus system.

A grassroots group in Cedar Rapids organized volunteers every weekend for flood recovery work.

An advocate for factory farms stepped down from the state Environmental Protection Commission.

Former John Deere employees filed a class-action lawsuit in Des Moines that underscored the failures of our employer-based health insurance system.

I called for ending Iowa's "don't ask, don't tell" approach to water quality.

I had a feeling that the Wall Street bailout was a terrible idea and "a trap that will enrich a bunch of people while doing little to help the overall economy."

There was a highly contentious election for the Des Moines school board, followed by an ill-advised attempt to censure the black sheep of the board. I found the lack of oversight on the Des Moines School Board disturbing.

A newspaper article on an abstinence club at my old high school inspired this post on why even abstaining teens need comprehensive sex eduction.

I explained why Iowa native Justin Roberts is our family's favorite children's musician.

October 2008

All three Iowa Democrats in the U.S. House voted for the second version of the Wall Street bailout package, while Iowa's two Republicans voted no. The bailout became a central issue in Tom Latham's campaign advertising after Becky Greenwald unwisely said she would have voted for the revised bailout package. Senators Harkin and Grassley both voted for the bailout.

I offered some advice to disappointed party activists on What to do when you don't care for your party's nominee. Bleeding Heartland user lorih followed up by explaining why she started volunteering for Obama despite her deep disappointment that Clinton did not win the nomination.

I continued to speculate on factors that might affect the accuracy of polls on the presidential race.

The third quarter Federal Election Commission filings showed all the incumbents in Iowa's Congressional delegation with big money leads over their challengers, foreshadowing the double-digit victories all the incumbents posted a few weeks later.

I kept urging our safe Democratic incumbents to "Use it or Lose it" by donating some of their excess campaign cash to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Although I considered the second district race uncompetitive, I covered some key issues and events in Dave Loebsack's campaign against Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

Again I examined the reasons underlying Iowa's failure to elect a woman to Congress.

Bleeding Heartland supported the Obama campaign's strong push for Iowa Democrats to vote early (including an early voting RV tour). As it turned out, strong early voting saved several Democratic statehouse incumbents.

Tom Latham debated Becky Greenwald twice on the radio during October; I analyzed the candidates' performance in the debates here and here.

Latham ran tv ads pounding Greenwald on the bailout, while the Democrat (lacking money for tv) had to make do with web ads and press releases highlighting Latham's record on various issues.

Not long after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee upgraded the races in IA-04 and IA-05, I urged Bleeding Heartland readers to get serious about expanding the field by supporting under-funded longshot Democratic Congressional challengers.

Steve King continued to embarrass himself and all Iowans.

Although the outcome wasn't what I'd hoped for, I have no regrets about encouraging Democrats to back Rob Hubler's campaign.

Speaking of longshots, little-known Republican Senate candidate Christopher Reed blew it in his only debate with Tom Harkin.

Harkin gave more cash to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. His campaign also launched a contest where Iowans could nominate county party organizations that deserved extra money for GOTV efforts. (Marion, Muscatine and Linn counties ended up winning.)

Mark Langgin urged Bleeding Heartland readers to support Democratic candidates for the Iowa House in light of a Republican focus on the House races.

The Republican 501(c)4 group American Future Fund exploited loopholes in rules governing political advocacy groups in order to run campaign advertising in targeted Iowa House districts.

The perils of leaving any Republican unopposed were exposed when news emerged that an incumbent Iowa senator with no Democratic challenger had previously been charged with a prostitution-related crime.

The Iowa Democratic Party kept producing videos on why McCain would be bad for Iowa.

I was puzzled by John McCain and Sarah Palin's visits to Iowa late in the campaign, despite poll after poll showing Obama above 50 percent in Iowa, with a double-digit lead over McCain. In fact, a series of missteps by McCain got me wondering whether the Republicans should have nominated Mitt Romney.

The not-so-classy McCain used the Iowa floods in his campaign's robocalls and direct-mail pieces.

Polk County Democratic activists gained national attention by holding a clothing drive for the DAV across the street from a Palin rally in Des Moines.

I went over some tips for phone bankers trying to recruit volunteers.

I supported a referendum on taking the word "idiot" out of the Iowa Constitution. (There was no organized opposition to that referendum, and it passed easily.)

For the first time in my life, the Des Moines Register endorsed the full slate of Iowa Democrats running for Congress. Ed Fallon urged his supporters to vote for Boswell in an e-mail that linked to the Register's incredibly lukewarm endorsement of the incumbent.

Obama made one last stop in Des Moines shortly before election day.

Iowa Voter noted that the Brennan Center gave Iowa high marks for election readiness.

Jason Rosenbaum contributed this guest post on why health care reform matters. Rosenbaum was involved with the Health Care for America Now Coalition, which kept up the grassroots pressure on Senator Chuck Grassley to support universal health care.

I attended a commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple who had gotten married in California a few months earlier.

November 2008

Obama won Iowa convincingly, but his 9-point margin was smaller than the 17-point lead he had in the final Des Moines Register poll of the campaign.

Democratic gains down-ticket were somewhat disappointing in Iowa, as in quite a few other states.

I looked at some reasons why Becky Greenwald lost to Tom Latham by more than 20 points in the fourth Congressional district.

It was weeks before recounts finally confirmed net Democratic gains of three seats in the Iowa House and two seats in the Iowa Senate.

Unsuccessful Congressional candidate Rob Hubler criticized the statewide GOTV effort in an e-mail to supporters. Hubler's son lost an Iowa House race by only a few hundred votes in the Council Bluffs area.

I was particularly disappointed when Democrat Jerry Sullivan lost in my own district by fewer than 100 votes. He had been the target of negative advertising as well as last-minute robocalls and lit drops.

In the good news column, Democratic incumbent Eric Palmer won re-election in his House district despite Republican attempts to disenfranchise Grinnell College students who voted by absentee ballot.

Jackie Norris accepted an offer to become Michelle Obama's chief of staff.

The presidential election results convinced Josh Goodman of Governing.com that Iowa is now the best bellwether state.

Likely future Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal reached out to social conservatives while visiting Iowa.

Meanwhile, the divided Republican Party of Iowa began work on turning the party's electoral fortunes around by replacing its leaders in the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate.

I suspect Democrats would benefit if Iowa Republicans take the advice of a leading social conservative.

Some Iowa Democrats grumble about Governor Culver, but I argued here that their discontent will not rise to the level of a primary challenge in 2010.

Bruce Braley played an active and visible role in Henry Waxman's successful campaign to be named chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Stranded Wind sounded the alarm about the risk of famine in 2009.

A blogger's struggle to pay medical bills inspired this post on the need for comprehensive health care reform. Our immoral and ineffective health care system was also the subject of this post.

I was surprised to learn that the Blog Gender Analyzer thinks I'm a man, a topic I explored further in this post at MyDD.

Wisconsin rejected an application to build a new coal-fired power plant, prompting the Iowa Environmental Council to call on Iowa policy-makers to follow the lead of "neighboring states to the west, north, and now east, which have concluded that clean energy makes more economic sense than coal."

I owned up to a few things I got wrong and right during the long presidential campaign.

December 2008

Tom Vilsack's nomination for Secretary of Agriculture was big news in Iowa. I covered the reaction to that appointment here and here.

The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Varnum v Brien, a same-sex marriage case. jpmassar walked us through some of the legal issues at hand, and I discussed the political implications of the court ruling expected sometime next year.

A week later I posted a recap and analysis of the Varnum v Brien hearing and reaction to it.

Deteriorating revenue projections prompted Governor Culver to impose two rounds of budget cuts. I discussed the merits of some approaches to balancing the budget here.

Culver's announcement of $100 million in budget cuts the same day he had scheduled a $5,000 a head fundraiser inspired me to make the case for "clean elections" campaign financing.

Speaking of election reform, Sean Flaherty and I wrote about the importance of "verified voting."

The Democratic leadership in the state legislature released the committee assignments for the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate.

I discussed Congressional Quarterly and Progressive Punch rankings for the members of Iowa's Congressional delegation in 2008.

Bruce Braley announced plans to form a Populist Caucus and landed a spot on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.

I examined how the post-census reapportionment is likely to play out in the 2012 U.S. House races in Iowa.

Organic farming is carbon sequestration we can believe in.

There is no such thing as "clean coal."

Bleeding Heartland user American007 won our election prediction contest.

I wondered whether it matters who ends up running the Republican Party in Iowa and nationwide.

Will Blue Dog power decline in the next Congress? (updated)

desmoinesdem — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Many a bad bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives with the votes of Republicans and Democratic "Blue Dogs." These representatives call themselves "moderates" or "centrists," and you often find them voting with corporate interests, against the majority of the House Democratic caucus, when the chips are down.

This Washington Post article about the upcoming debate over an economic stimulus bill cites Representative Baron Hill of Indiana as "incoming co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of 51 fiscally conservative House Democrats."

Hill wants the economic stimulus money to go toward road and bridge construction, whereas others would like to see more of the money spent on "green jobs" and infrastructure projects that are more environmentally friendly than building new roads. Progressives would like to spend the transportation money on fixing our existing roads and bridges while expanding public transit and rail.

Friends of the Earth has launched a campaign to "keep the economic stimulus clean":

Transportation in the U.S. is responsible for 30 percent of our global warming pollution and 70 percent of our oil consumption. We cannot solve the energy and climate challenge without making our transportation system far cleaner and more efficient.
President-elect Obama and the congressional leadership are moving quickly to pass an economic stimulus package that creates green jobs with a new, clean energy infrastructure. Public transportation, smart growth and green transportation alternatives are a crucial part of this effort.
Unfortunately, the road-building lobby is attempting to hijack this bill and divert billions of dollars to the construction of new, unnecessary roads, highways and bridges that would deepen our nation's dependence on oil and increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Click here for more details about the economic and environmental consequences of letting new road construction dominate the stimulus bill.

Getting back to the title of this diary, Matt Stoller read that Washington Post piece about debates over the stimulus and was intrigued to learn that Hill claims 51 members for the Blue Dog Coalition:

Last session, there were 49 Blue Dogs, and during the election season the caucus continually bragged about how they would add a substantial number of new members in 2009. Still, their PAC didn't give to very many Democratic candidates, two Blue Dogs lost reelection, and a bunch of their candidate prospects lost. If it's true that the Blue Dogs have only increased their number by 2, and I'm not sure it is, then they really are far weaker in the House than they were from 2006-2008. There are 257 Democrats in the next Congress and 178 Republicans. While the Blue Dogs are still a swing bloc, they only have 11 votes to give. That's not very many, considering that this number assumes all Republicans always vote with the Blue Dogs. If Republicans split off from their caucus on certain votes, even small numbers of Republicans, then Blue Dog priorities are far less likely to matter overall.

Leonard Boswell (IA-03) is the only Iowa Democrat in the Blue Dog group. Once the new House convenes, it will be interesting to see how the Blue Dogs compare in number to the Progressive Caucus, which had 71 members in the last Congress, including Dave Loebsack (IA-02). My hunch is that the Progressive Caucus will add a lot more new members than the Blue Dogs.

After the new year I'll try to find out how many members Bruce Braley (IA-01) was able to recruit to the Populist Caucus he is forming.

Whether or not Blue Dog power declines in the House, it may be on the rise in the Senate. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is setting up a Blue Dog caucus in the upper chamber. Although Senate Majority leader Harry Reid's spokesman claims Reid is "upbeat" about Bayh's plans, it's likely that the Senate Blue Dogs will collude with Republicans to obstruct Barack Obama's agenda.

Matthew Yglesias advanced a very plausible hypothesis about Bayh's move:

With Republicans out of power, the GOP can't really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there's no reason it couldn't work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years.

Let's hope the memory of the 1994 Republican landslide will induce conservative Democrats not to block most of Obama's agenda. The Democrats who ran Congress in 1993 and 1994 wanted to show Bill Clinton who was boss, but the effect was to make Democrats look incompetent, depressing Democratic base turnout in 1994 and turning swing voters toward the Republicans.

On the other hand, I would not underestimate the Blue Dogs' willingness to do what big money wants, whether or not it's good for the Democratic Party.

Share any relevant thoughts in the comments.

UPDATE: Kagro X notes that the Progressive Caucus seems to be a more cohesive voting bloc than the Blue Dogs, which is surprising.

Meanwhile, Chris Bowers argues persuasively than the Blue Dogs have achieved little on their alleged signature issue of "fiscal responsibility":

If the Blue Dogs only exist in order to promote "fiscal responsibility," isn't it pretty clear that, rather than getting their way, they have actually failed across the board over the last eight years? From the Bush tax cuts, to soaring deficits, to making exceptions for war, to making exceptions for bailouts, to making exceptions to stimulus packages, the Blue Dogs have completely and utterly failed at their stated primary policy area and done so at every available opportunity.
The only actual successes of the Blue Dogs appear to be the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] re-write and blank check funding for Iraq. It is notable that 38 of the 47 Blue Dogs voted in favor of both these measures, which jointly render a member a "Bush Dog" in Open Left's terminology. Given that 70 House members voted in favor of both those measures, the Democratic defectors on those issues were clearly spearheaded by the Blue Dogs.
Mainly, I am impressed that Blue Dogs keep earning press that describes them as fiscally responsible and wildly powerful, when the record shows otherwise. When offered opportunities to actually clamp down on spending over the last two years, the Blue Dogs have balked at every turn, favoring blank check funding for Iraq, blank check funding for the bailout, and massive funding for the economic stimulus. That a group of House members can do all of this and still be described as both "fiscally responsible" and "powerful" is pretty impressive. Maybe what we progressives really need is to hire the Blue Dogs' PR people.

Braley to Start a Populist Caucus in the U.S. House

noneed4thneed — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:42:29 GMT

Bruce Braley is once again showing leadership in Congress.

Braley sent a letter to colleagues in the U.S. House about becoming a founding member of a populist caucus to help the middle class and working families.

The letter outlines six goals...

1. Fighting for working families and the middle class through the establishment of an equitable tax structure, fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and secure, solvent retirement plans.
2. Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care to all Americans.
3. Ensuring accessible, quality primary education for all American children, and affordable college education for all who want it.
4. Protecting consumers, so that Americans can once again have faith in the safety and effectiveness of the products they purchase.
5. Defending American competitiveness by fighting for fair trade principles.
6. Creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America.

Both John Edwards and Mike Huckabee were described as being populists during their presidential runs and that helped them do well in the Iowa Caucuses. This shows the issues outlined have some support on both sides of the aisle.

Matt Stoller has more at Open Left how this populist caucus compares to the Progressive Caucus and the more conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Stoller points out how, historically, Populists have been more rural-based and the Blue Dogs tend to represent more rural areas.