Bleeding Heartland - Tom Latham

Iowa reaction to the IRS scandal

desmoinesdem — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:28:00 GMT

Internal Revenue Service Acting Director Steven Miller was forced to resign this week following revelations that the IRS targeted tea party organizations that applied for tax-exempt status. I enclose below reaction to this scandal from Iowa's Congressional delegation.

A separate post is in progress to catch up on recent votes by Iowa's four U.S. representatives and two senators.
Although IRS scrutiny should never be politically motivated, the abuse of tax-exempt 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status is a major problem. Erika Kelton expressed it well in this commentary for Forbes:

Taxpayers in effect subsidize tax-exempt groups with the understanding that these groups engage solely in social welfare, educational, charitable or other work deemed important for the public good as specified in the tax code. Groups that don't hold up their end of the bargain should lose the benefits of being tax-exempt. [...]
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has long spoken out about the abuse and misuse of tax-exempt status. Many years ago he identified key areas of concern, which haven't changed. Some of those concerns included:
* Excessive compensation perks, pay and sweetheart deals involving officers and directors.
* Nonprofit groups that act more like for-profit businesses than charities.
* Inappropriate political activity.
* Lack of financial transparency and accountability to donors.
* Nonprofit hospitals that do not provide adequate charity care and community benefits.
* Tax-exempt organizations fronting as tax-shelters.
Too many groups that don't deserve tax-exempt status have gotten it with very few questions asked. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing groups that hide their political agenda behind their tax-exempt status or subsidizing any other organizations that don't truly qualify.
In the recent controversy, all sides seem to agree that the IRS went too far in the demands for information from the Tea Party groups. However, the lesson from the Tea Party applications shouldn't be to stop asking questions; it should be to establish clear definitions and rules regarding who qualifies for tax-exempt status and to consistently ask the same questions of all applicants.

On May 14, Grassley's office sent out this press release:

Grassley Seeks Details Behind IRS Official's Apology for Targeting Tax-exempt Groups
WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today asked the IRS for details on the agency's move to disclose the targeting of tax-exempt groups for scrutiny and apologize for the targeting at a legal conference, after refusing to fully answer questions about such activity from members of Congress who have been asking about the targeting for more than a year. Grassley also asked for communications on the issue between the IRS and the White House or other organizations.
"An IRS official apologized for activities the IRS previously denied," Grassley said. "She explained the activities in a detailed way. Why now, and why at a conference instead of to Congress? Congress has been asking the same questions. The IRS has to answer for its behavior and its failure to disclose its behavior."
The IRS' screening of tax-exempt groups with certain political leanings came to light on Friday, when the head of the IRS' tax-exempt division disclosed the practice at an American Bar Association conference and apologized for it. The disclosure came days before an inspector general report on the issue is expected to become public.
Key members of Congress have written to the IRS and heard testimony from top IRS officials in denial of the targeting practice over the past year.
The text of Grassley's letter is available here.

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) released this statement and letter to President Barack Obama on May 13:

Washington, D.C. - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today called on President Barack Obama to request the immediate resignation of Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service, and launch an independent investigation into revelations that the IRS has been targeting certain groups for increased scrutiny based on their political beliefs.
On Friday, the IRS admitted it had targeted groups for tax audits based on whether organizations used terms like "tea party" and "patriot" in their names. Lerner apologized for those actions.
Braley said, "Our society is based on free ideas and free expression. When the government targets organizations because of their political beliefs, it has a chilling effect on free speech and damages the very foundation of our country.
"Sorry just doesn't cut it. There need to be consequences for this violation of the public trust, starting with the resignation of Lois Lerner. President Obama should also immediately begin a thorough and independent investigation of the IRS to ensure that anyone responsible for this behavior is held accountable.
"There is simply no place for politics at the IRS."
Braley made the request in a letter to President Obama. Full text of the letter follows; a copy of the signed letter is attached.
--
May 13, 2013
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
I am shocked and furious to learn that an agency with the authority and responsibility as influential as that of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has unfairly increased scrutiny over Americans for using terms such as "tea party," "patriot" and "9-12." In reviewing applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status, the IRS has failed to treat all citizens equally and judiciously in carrying out the law and their obligations to the American people.
I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter and acknowledgement that this activity is unacceptable. I ask that you not tolerate these biased and unfair actions in the IRS and immediately launch a swift, independent investigation of the egregious oversight, as well as call for the resignation of Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations for the IRS. I am extremely troubled that under Lerner's supervision IRS agents were given little guidance for review of these applications and repeatedly changed their criteria for their examination.
Lerner knew of this activity in June of 2011 and still, rather than create a fair and uniform process to review the applications, six months later in January of 2012 the IRS adopted standards to focus on "political action type organizations" that are involved in "limiting or expanding government," and "educating the public on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform." These criteria clearly target applicants based on their political beliefs rather than whether or not their activities and structure meet the eligibility standards for 501(c)(4) status.
These revelations about the IRS have damaged the agency's ability to enforce laws that require 501(c)(4) organizations to comply with statutory limits on political advocacy. During this time of increased political advocacy and heightened partisan politics, Americans rely on the IRS to act with neutrality and integrity. Restoring this confidence is necessary to empower the IRS to exact its oversight and ensure that groups applying for and operating under this tax exempt status are in fact meeting the goals and requirements associated with the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status.
I understand that all agencies are doing more with less and that review of these applications increased without clear guidelines for review. However, this is exactly the problem. No clear guidelines for a neutral assessment were provided to the IRS agents until May 17, 2012. This error is a direct problem in supervision and management and it must be dealt with on behalf of all Americans. In overseeing the social welfare and political activities of groups that apply for this status, the IRS must provide guidance and criteria that allow agents to act in a fair and neutral manner with all applicants.
American citizens need to know that their beliefs and associations will not be discriminated against by their government and they deserve quick action that affirms this activity is intolerable. I hope that you will move forward immediately to ensure a thorough and independent investigation takes place, clear guidelines are provided, and that the appropriate supervisors are dealt with.
Sincerely,
Bruce Braley
Member of Congress

After President Obama announced yesterday that Miller had resigned, Braley's office sent out this comment:

"The resignation of the IRS acting director is a good first step at holding accountable the people responsible for the shameful actions of the IRS. As I've said, there is no place for politics at the IRS, and the IRS' targeting of groups for scrutiny based on nothing more than their political beliefs is an affront to our society's value of free expression.
"I continue to urge the President to conduct a thorough and independent investigation to ensure anyone responsible for this behavior is held accountable."
On Monday, Braley wrote President Obama urging him to ask for the resignation of Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, and launch an independent investigation into the actions of the IRS. The letter is attached.

Today Braley hit the nail on the head in these comments to Radio Iowa:

"The latest reports of what has been happening at the Internal Revenue Service undermines the public's trust in government, it harms the IRS's effort to enforce the laws that they're charged with enforcing. And it hurts their efforts to enforce the laws that apply to 501C-4 non-profit organizations."
The IRS admitted it targeted conservative groups when applications were put in to review them. Braley says the rules require the non-profit groups to have a 50-percent cap their political activity.
"I believe that there have been abuses of that 50-percent cap and that's one of the enforcement responsibilities of the Internal Revenue Service. But when you have a cloud hanging over the agency because of the approval of the applications on the front end, it damages the credibility of the agency to conduct a nonpartisan investigation of groups to make sure that they are complying with the law," Braley says.
He says the IRS problems have to be cleared up before anything can be done about possible violations of the rules by non-profit groups.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) released this statement on May 14:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack today called on President Obama to fully investigate the allegations that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) illegally targeted non-profit organizations based on ideological criteria. He also called for the swift dismissal of anyone involved in the wrongdoing and anyone who had knowledge that it was happening and did not act to stop it. Yesterday, Loebsack wrote to the Acting Commissioner of the IRS calling for an investigation and today sent a letter to the President demanding action.
"I call upon the IRS to promptly conduct a thorough, independent investigation of these allegations. The agency needs to hold those responsible for this partisan discrimination fully accountable, including firing anyone who had knowledge that it was happening and did not act to stop it," Loebsack wrote to Steven Miller, the Acting Commissioner of the IRS. "I respectfully call on you to see through an impartial, independent investigation of these allegations, and urge you to take appropriate actions to hold those responsible fully accountable."
"I was incredibly shocked to read the reports that the Internal Revenue Service engaged in targeting of groups based on ideological criteria. It is unacceptable for the agency that we as a nation rely on to execute our tax code to be anything but completely neutral and nonpartisan," Loebsack wrote to President Obama. "If it is found that these allegations are true, I urge the swift dismissal of those involved in the wrongdoing as well as anyone who knew what was happening and did not immediately act to fully investigate and disclose actions by IRS employees."
The letter to Acting Commissioner Miller can be found here. The letter to President Obama can be found here.

Loebsack's office sent out this statement yesterday before Miller's resignation was made public:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement calling on Steven Miller, the Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to step down in light of a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The report contained new information citing "ineffective management" as a reason non-profit organizations were illegally targeted based on ideological criteria for more than 18 months.
"After the report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the IRS watchdog, I believe Acting Director Steven Miller must step down. The American people expect the IRS to be wholly neutral and nonpartisan and to have a Commissioner who is capable of providing the leadership necessary to enforce that standard amongst every IRS employee. I no longer believe Acting Commissioner Miller is viewed as such by the American people and he needs to be replaced. If Mr. Miller will not step down on his own, I believe the President needs to dismiss him."

Today Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) released this statement after participating in a joint press conference by Republicans in Congress.

"Today I joined my friends in the House and Senate, as well as conservative leaders from across the country, to bring light to the recent admission by the IRS that it unjustly targeted conservative groups leading up to the 2012 election," said King. "There is no place for this kind of political targeting in our constitutional republic. This reeks of the kind of political tyranny that so many people from around the world came to America to escape.
This scandal cannot be considered in isolation. The IRS has become a bullying arm of the monstrous federal government - used to harass the political enemies of the president. This problem will only get worse, as the IRS will be the prime enforcement arm of ObamaCare: collecting a trillion dollars in new taxes and auditing individuals and businesses to make sure they have government-approved health insurance. This IRS scandal makes it more important than ever that we repeal ObamaCare, and it should also renew calls for fundamental tax reform, the FairTax, which would abolish the IRS entirely."

At this writing, I have not seen any public comments on the IRS scandal from Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03) or U.S. Senator Tom Harkin.

President Obama has said he was unaware of the IRS actions toward tea party groups.

IA-03: Gabriel De La Cerda

RDillon — Fri, 10 May 2013 06:21:40 GMT

The Third Congressional District already has a fine, grassroots Democrat running against Tom Latham in 2014. His name is Gabriel De la Cerda. He offers voters in the Third Congressional District of Iowa something they currently do not have. A Congressman who is beholden to them, not the Republican leadership in Washington and a Congressman that truly understands the problems working Iowans face because he is right there with you facing them daily.
If we ever want to see any kind of progress in this country once again, we simply must fight for and support candidates who will fight for and support us in Washington D.C. when they are elected. As a lifelong member of the working class De la Cerda is ready to do just that:

Des Moines, IA - April 15th 2013 - Former factory worker Gabriel De La Cerda has declared his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for Iowa's 3rd Congressional District. A lifelong member of the working class, De La Cerda understands first-hand the hardships faced by the everyday Iowan. He aspires to serve in Congress to help solve those issues.
"The time for being passive in our democracy is over," De La Cerda said. "In today's political climate I will fight for those who have no voice. I will reinvigorate the progressive beliefs which made this country successful for all in the 20th century. I will not apologize for my ideals, and I will fight relentlessly for what I believe in. Never bet against the American working class - we're the ones who get things done."

He goes on to state the obvious. Career politicians like Tom Latham will never fight for us because they simply cannot understand the problems the policies they enact in Washington cause for us. They are too busy rubbing elbows with the elitists they truly represent:

"Congressmen like Tom Latham seem to think the strength of a political voice should be determined by the size of a person's bank account," De La Cerda said. "Struggling Americans all across the country have to choose between filling up the gas tank or paying the light bill; I've had to face this reality. How can the millionaires in Congress - who have never had to make this choice - truly represent the Americans who struggle with this decision every day? Our voices must be represented in Congress, and I can be that voice."

http://www.gabedlc2dc.org/index/

As I said before if we ever expect to bring about real change in our country we simply must support fine, grassroots Democrat when and where they emerge. Gabriel Del la Cerda definitely fits that mold.

This article shows just how important the Third District of Iowa could be in taking the House away from the Republicans in 2014:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

My question to everyone here is why not support Gabriel Del la Cerda? Go here to give him the funds he needs to give Iowa's Third Congressional District something it desperately needs. A Congressman that will represent real working Iowans:

https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-...

Rod Roberts confirms interest in IA-Sen race

desmoinesdem — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:00:00 GMT

I expect at least one former Republican state legislator to run for the open U.S. Senate seat next year. Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals Director Rod Roberts told The Iowa Republican's Kevin Hall that he is seriously considering the race.

"A few months ago I didn't anticipate that running for the U.S. Senate would be a real possibility," Roberts said. "Like most folks, I assumed either Congressman Latham or Congressman King would run. But, as the odds have increased that neither congressman will run, more people have encouraged me to think about it. At this point, I'd say I'm certainly considering the opportunity, and I'm planning to continue talking with family, friends and supporters in the coming weeks."

Roberts represented the Carroll area in the Iowa House for a decade before running for governor in 2010. He was an adequate campaigner, but his principal role in my opinion was as stalking horse for Terry Branstad during the Republican primary. On the other hand, Carroll-based journalist Douglas Burns believes Roberts would be the ideal Senate candidate for the GOP to run against Democrat Bruce Braley.

Any comments about the IA-Sen campaign are welcome in this thread. According to Hall's latest post, State Senator Joni Ernst "has set a timeline of about 30 days to make a decision" about the Senate race. Bob Vander Plaats told the Sioux City Journal he believes Latham may change his mind about not seeking the Senate seat if Steve King decides to stay in IA-04, as expected.

UPDATE: In the unlikely event that Rod Roberts wins the Senate nomination, I think his move to reduce nursing home inspectors would become a general election campaign issue.

IA-Sen: Tom Latham still thinking about it?

desmoinesdem — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:25:00 GMT

In late February, Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03) indicated that he did not plan to run for Iowa's open U.S. Senate seat in 2014. I took his statement at face value, especially since he told a conservative radio host that lack of interest in campaigning steered him away from a Senate race that otherwise "was a very, very good opportunity."

Some politics watchers noted that Latham carefully wrote in his e-mail to supporters, "I cannot in good conscience launch a two-year statewide campaign that will detract from the commitment I made to the people who elected me, at a time when our nation desperately needs less campaigning and more leadership." In other words, he didn't explicitly rule out joining the Senate race later. Maybe those skeptics were on to something.
Shane Goldmacher reported for the National Journal on April 19,

Rep. Tom Latham's recent declaration that he wouldn't run for the Senate was cheered by [Representative Greg] Walden, the NRCC [National Republican Congressional Committee] chairman. But Latham's statement left some wiggle room, and he has maintained contact with the NRSC [National Republican Senatorial Committee], according to a person familiar with those talks.

Hat tip to Taniel.

Many Iowa Republicans from Governor Terry Branstad on down would be happy to see Latham ride in on his white horse in early 2014. He has obvious strengths as a candidate, especially compared to lesser-known and untested Republicans. He could raise a lot of money quickly to cut into Democratic candidate Bruce Braley's financial advantage.

On the other hand, Latham's wiggle room may deter other potentially good candidates from launching a statewide Senate campaign this summer. Who wants to spend months working hard at fundraising and traveling all over the state, only to be bigfooted by Latham?

I still believe that Latham will stay on relatively safe ground in IA-03 rather than risk a Senate race he could lose, either in the GOP primary or to Braley.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Any comments about the IA-Sen race are welcome in this thread.

P.S. - Likely GOP Senate candidate Matt Whitaker was a guest on Dave Price's Sunday morning television show on April 14. (The other guest on that show was Braley's campaign manager, Jeff Link.) Whitaker is a former University of Iowa football star who served as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Iowa during George W. Bush's administration. He is now a managing partner in the uber-connected Des Moines law firm Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP.

Iowa Congressional fundraising 1Q news roundup (updated)

desmoinesdem — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:15:00 GMT

April 15 was the deadline for Congressional candidates to file reports on their fundraising and expenditures for the first quarter of 2013. Details on all of the Iowa incumbents and some other declared candidates are after the jump. At this writing, not every report has been posted on the Federal Elections Commission website. I will update this post as more information becomes available.
U.S. Senate

For reasons I don't understand, campaign finance reports from U.S. Senate candidates are not posted on the FEC's website. Bruce Braley's campaign released a four-page summary yesterday. Braley transferred $179,000 from his U.S. House re-election campaign (Braley for Congress) to his Senate campaign (Braley for Iowa). In addition, Braley for Iowa raised $682,980 from individuals and $173,895.92 from political action committees (PACs). The campaign did not report any contributions from the candidate or from political party committees.

I am seeking a copy of Braley's FEC filing so that I can see the full list of individual and PAC donations. At this writing, the Braley campaign has not made that document available. A press release on April 15 noted, "the campaign has received contributions from donors in all 99 counties in the state of Iowa."

Braley for Iowa reported $31,269.28 in operating expenditures during the first quarter, leaving $1,004,606.64 cash on hand as of March 31. No question, it's a solid start for a statewide campaign, though it may be hard for Braley to keep up that fundraising pace in subsequent quarters. I would guess that the "usual suspects" among major Iowa Democratic donors have maxed out already (which is one reason I would like to view the full FEC filing).

LATE UPDATE: Braley's full report for the first quarter is here (very large pdf). Itemized individual donations take up nearly 500 pages of that document. Several dozen donors have already "maxed out" with contributions totaling $5,200, and a few dozen others have given the maximum contribution of $2,600 for a primary campaign. That said, I do not believe Braley is anywhere close to depleting the pool of major Iowa Democratic donors, not to mention trial attorneys living in other states (a source of many large campaign gifts so far). A large number of donors have given between $250 and $1,000 already, and I would expect many of those to give again before the 2014 election.

The list of PAC donors to Braley for Iowa in the first quarter runs from pages 497 to 517. It's a typical mix for a Democratic candidate, representing corporations, labor unions, and some progressive advocacy groups.

Braley's cash on hand won't intimidate any well-connected potential GOP candidates. Probably a dozen Republicans in this state could raise a million dollars for a U.S. Senate bid quickly. The worrying factor for Republicans is that a competitive primary will likely drain the eventual nominee's funds, allowing Braley to build a big money lead going into next year's general election campaign.

IA-01

Braley for Congress reported raising $214,955 during the first three months of 2013, of which $65,455 came from individuals and $149,500 from PACs. Looking at the list of contributions to Braley's IA-01 re-election campaign, you can see that all of the donations came on or before February 7, when Braley launched his U.S. Senate bid.

Braley for Congress reported $81,811.86 in operating expenditures during the first quarter. The largest payments were for fundraising and consulting services. After transferring $179,000 to the Braley for Iowa Senate campaign, Braley for Congress had $5,636.30 cash on hand as of March 31.

Pat Murphy for Iowa, the only current Democratic campaign to succeed Braley, declared $68,070 in contributions for the first quarter of 2013. Of that amount, $7,545 came from the candidate, and $60,275 came from other individuals ($40,139 itemized, $20,136 in small gifts that were not itemized). You can view the full list of Murphy donors here. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal kicked in $250, as did quite a few current and former Iowa House Democrats (John Forbes, Curt Hanson, Roger Thomas, Helen Miller, Andrew Wenthe, Paul Shomshor, Dick Taylor, John Wittneben, Ray Zirkelbach). State Representative Mary Gaskill gave $300, and a few of Murphy's onetime Iowa House colleagues gave $500 each: State Representatives Mark Smith and Dan Muhlbauer, retired State Representative Polly Bukta, and State Senator Janet Petersen. Former gubernatorial candidate Mike Blouin gave $300. The only PAC donation to Murphy's Congressional campaign was $250 from the CenturyLink employees' PAC.

Murphy's campaign reported spending just $8,202.80 during the first quarter, leaving $59,867.20 cash on hand as of March 31. That's a fraction of what Murphy would need to raise for a successful campaign, but it's a head start. I imagine that a lot of the Democratic donors in IA-01 are sitting tight, waiting for the Congressional field to take shape.

Two Republicans have declared their candidacies in IA-01: Steve Rathje and Rod Blum. At this writing I don't see financial reports from either of them on the FEC's website. Rathje announced on Twitter that his campaign raised $51,515 between February 20 and March 31.

UPDATE: Rathje reported $51,506.63 in contributions during the first quarter, all from individuals. More than half the money he raised came from six donors who each contributed the maximum $5,200. But only $2,600 from any individual donor can be used during a primary campaign. In other words, $15,600 of what Rathje raised can't be used unless and until he wins the 2014 Republican primary.

Rathje's campaign spent $20,423.76, leaving $31,082.87 cash on hand as of March 31. Most of the expenditures went toward consulting, branding, and website design; $4,000 went to the candidate, but it's not clear what he was being reimbursed for. About half of the Rathje campaign's cash on hand is restricted for use during a general election campaign (if he wins the Republican primary).

LATE UPDATE: As of April 25, I still cannot find any first quarter financial report from Rod Blum's campaign on the FEC website. Blum has not responded to my request for comment on whether he filed a report. Perhaps his campaign didn't raise or spend enough to require a quarterly filing. Seven individual donors are thanked on the front page of his campaign website.

APRIL 25 UPDATE: According to Erin Murphy of the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, Blum's campaign filed organizing papers with the FEC after the April quarterly reporting deadline. Consequently, his first financial disclosure report will cover the second quarter of 2013.

IA-02

Four-term Democratic incumbent Dave Loebsack has never been a powerhouse fundraiser. The latest filing looks like a typical quarter for him: $104,222.13 in total contributions and $27,288.12 in expenditures, leaving $100,710.79 cash on hand as of March 31. As usual, Loebsack raised a lot more from PACs ($66,250) than from individuals ($37,972.13, of which $19,325 were itemized). You can view all the Loebsack for Congress donors during the first quarter here. I noticed that State Senator Joe Seng donated $250, which presumably means he's not planning another primary challenge in IA-02. (Loebsack defeated Seng in the 2012 Democratic primary with about 81.5 percent of the vote.) The PAC donors to Loebsack were a mix of corporate and labor groups, plus $2,500 from Senator Tom Harkin's TOM-PAC.

To my knowledge, no Republican has announced plans to run against Loebsack in 2014. His 2012 opponent, John Archer, filed a termination report for his campaign in January.

IA-03

Ten-term Republican incumbent Tom Latham showed why it's good to be an Appropriations subcommittee chairman. With hardly any apparent effort, his campaign raised $300,750 during the first quarter, of which more than 90 percent ($279,000) came from PACs.

Latham's campaign raised just $21,650 from individuals during the first three months of the year. Your unintentional comedy for the week comes from Jennifer Jacobs' report for the Des Moines Register.

Only one Iowa resident is listed as a donor - Bruce Kelley, an executive with EMC Insurance - but aides said that's because Latham was focused on governing and didn't actively solicit donations in Iowa.
There are three other donations from Iowa addresses, but two are political action committees ($2,000 from Principal Life Insurance Co. PAC and $5,000 from the Rain & Hail Insurance Society PAC), and one is from a county party ($100 from the Humboldt County GOP).

So focused on governing, no time to have staff send a form letter to a mailing list! At least Latham had plenty of time to cash those PAC checks.

Latham's largest expenditures during the reporting period were $50,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and a little less than that amount to the Republican Party of Iowa's federal account. His campaign ended the quarter with $284,348.20 cash on hand, an amount that will multiply several times by the fall of 2014. That may be one reason former State Senator Staci Appel just decided not to run against Latham in 2014.

Democrat Mike Sherzan launched a campaign in IA-03 in February but more recently announced that he was quitting the race for health reasons. He actually had a decent fundraising quarter for a first-time candidate. He loaned his own campaign $140,000, and Sherzan for Congress raised another $85,280 from individuals. Sherzan plans to return all campaign contributions to the donors.

The only current Democratic challenger in IA-03, Gabriel De La Cerda, has not raised enough funds yet to file an FEC disclosure report. Bleeding Heartland will discuss De La Cerda's campaign in an upcoming post.

IA-04

Six-term incumbent Steve King has been raising money off standing up to Karl Rove and the evil establishment, so I was expecting to see a big haul for his re-election campaign. However, King for Congress reported raising just $78,072 from individuals, $250 from political party committees, and $14,877.45 from PACs during the first quarter. His campaign refunded $6,000 to donors, leaving $87,199.45 in net contributions. King's campaign reported $84,175.17 in operating expenditures during the period, plus $47,500 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. King for Congress had $90,148.51 cash on hand as of March 31.

King has previously said the ability to raise money for a statewide race will be one factor affecting his analysis of a possible U.S. Senate bid. I'm telling you, this man will not run for the Senate.

Democrat Jim Mowrer is reportedly planning to run in IA-04 next year, but he has not formed a campaign officially or filed an FEC report.

Weekend open thread: Dangerous consensus edition

desmoinesdem — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:15:00 GMT

Most political junkies love a good brawl. While Congress-watchers were paying attention to fights this week over the president's proposed budget, confirming federal judges, or tightening up gun ownership regulations, a non-controversial but significant bill zoomed through the U.S. House and Senate.
Niels Lesniewski reported for Roll Call on April 11,

With most of the Senate's attention focused on guns and immigration, the Senate quietly acted to dramatically scale back the reach of the law's most contentious provision. Absent Congressional action or a court order, the law known as the STOCK Act requiring online publication of financial information for a slew of federal employees would take effect next week.
The Senate bill passed Thursday by unanimous consent goes beyond a simple delay. If passed by the House and signed by President Barack Obama, the measure would exclude legislative and executive staffers from having their financial disclosure forms posted on the Internet. The new reporting requirements would still apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional candidates and individuals subject to Senate confirmation.

Congress approved the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act in 2012 to prevent insider trading by members of Congress, other federal officials, and their staffs. Iowa's five U.S. House representatives and two senators all supported the bill.

The drive to repeal disclosure requirements for staff came after a report on the STOCK Act came out in late March:

"Virtually all the cybersecurity, national security, and law enforcement experts interviewed during this study noted that making this information available in this fashion fundamentally transforms the ability (and the likelihood) of others - individuals, organizations, nation-states - to exploit that information for criminal, intelligence, and other purposes," the report said.

Within a few weeks, a bill was drawn up and passed with no hearings, floor debate or roll call votes in the Senate or House. Emily Pierce reported for Roll Call on April 12,

House and Senate leaders were spurred to action by a scathing report detailing the national security dangers that could come from a provision added in the Senate. But instead of touting those reasons, both chambers attempted to keep the process quiet in an apparent attempt to avoid the political vulnerability that could come from instituting less transparency in government.
Both chambers passed the bill by unanimous consent after leaders in both parties and the White House refused to answer CQ Roll Call's questions about the process all week.

Pierce cited a federal court filing, which indicated that President Barack Obama will sign the bill.

I haven't studied the issues surrounding the STOCK Act. This bill may be a reasonable step to address certain problems. By the same token, it could enable the kind of insider dealing that inspired the STOCK Act in the first place. I'm suspicious of legislation that passes without any public debate or a roll call vote that can be pinned on individual members of Congress. As Roll Call reporter Steven Dennis commented, "We've learned one thing Congress can can do with lightning speed, no debate & no actual voting: Repeal a piece of the STOCK Act."

Iowa politics-watchers have been treated to lots of public battles during this legislative session. Despite the intense disagreements over education funding, Medicaid expansion, and confirmation of Board of Regents nominees, the Iowa House and Senate have agreed on some bills with little public debate.

In today's edition of the Sunday Des Moines Register, editors gave a "thistle" to legislators for passing one bill easily this session.

A thistle to the Iowa Legislature for asking a question but ignoring the answer. The House and Senate both passed a bill that increases the penalty for interference with the official duties of a law officer that results in an injury to the officer. The tougher penalty likely will have a disproportionate impact on minorities in Iowa. Lawmakers know that because the Legislative Services Agency was specifically asked to prepare minority-impact statement on the bill due to Iowa's sorry record of locking up blacks at a higher rate proportionally than whites. Yet, the bill sailed through the Senate 50-zip. At least the House seriously debated the race implications before it passed the bill. Lawmakers might as well not ask for reports on the impact of their actions if they do not intend to take seriously the results.

Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson reported on the Iowa House debate over this bill, Senate File 384, on April 11. Click here to find the audio file. The bill passed by 77 votes to 17 (roll call here). You can view the lobbyist declarations on this bill here. The Iowa House Democrats who voted against this bill were Ako Abdul-Samad, Marti Anderson, Deborah Berry, Ruth Ann Gaines, Bruce Hunter, Vicki Lensing, Mary Mascher, Kevin McCarthy, Pat Murphy, Jo Oldson, Rick Olson, Todd Prichard, Sharon Steckman, Todd Taylor, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, Cindy Winckler, and Mary Wolfe.

It's not the first time Iowa lawmakers overwhelmingly agreed on a bad idea. A few years ago, a bill eliminating fines against nursing homes for various health and safety violations passed the Iowa House and Senate unanimously. A couple of years before that, the film tax credit that wasted a lot of state money and eventually led to some criminal indictments passed by 95 votes to 1 in the Iowa House and 48 to 2 in the Iowa Senate.

High-profile, contentious bills grab attention by prompting press conferences, rallies and public hearings. But consensus bills influence public policy too--not always for the better.

Some political scientists believe divided control of a legislature is ideal, because gridlock prevents either party from overreaching. But failure to act on high-profile, contentious bills doesn't mean nothing important is happening. Political consensus is

Iowa reaction to Obama's budget proposal, latest postal delivery news

desmoinesdem — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:20:00 GMT

President Barack Obama formally presented his draft budget for fiscal year 2014 today. Click through for details, but here are the top numbers:

The $1.058 trillion budget for fiscal year 2014 - which arrived on Capitol Hill about two months late - includes $3.77 trillion in total spending, including entitlements.
It would add $5.3 trillion in new deficit spending over 10 years and increase spending in 2014 by $160 billion compared to current law.

Statements from Representatives Dave Loebsack, Tom Latham, and Steve King are after the jump, along with press releases from several Iowa advocacy groups. I am seeking comment on the president's budget from all the members of Iowa's Congressional delegation and will update this post as needed. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement called attention to the fact that Representative Bruce Braley has not explained his position on changing the Social Security cost of living adjustment to calculate benefits with a chained consumer price index. The president's budget includes the "chained CPI" proposal, a truly terrible idea. The AARP said today it is "deeply dismayed that President Obama would propose cutting the benefits of current and future Social Security recipients, including children, widows, veterans and people with disabilities, to reduce the deficit."

Also today, the U.S. Postal Service announced that it has delayed plans to cancel Saturday mail delivery. Comments from Loebsack and Representative Bruce Braley are at the end of this post. Both of them had strongly criticized the idea when floated in February.
Comment via e-mail from Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02):

"I strongly believe we must balance the budget and get our fiscal house in order. But, as I have repeatedly said, it cannot be on the backs of seniors, the middle class, and the most vulnerable. While the budget put forward by the President makes some important investments to increase economic growth, I do not believe he should be pushing for a switch to the 'chained CPI' for Social Security recipients. Iowans pay into Social Security all their lives for the promise of security in retirement."

Press release from Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03):

LATHAM STATEMENT ON OBAMA BUDGET
Two Months Late, Budget Contains More Spending, Higher Taxes, Never Balances - Which Is No Way to Run a Government
Washington, Apr 10 -
Iowa Congressman Tom Latham released the following statement today upon the release of the President's budget, which never achieves balance and arrived more than two months beyond the due date required by law:
"Iowans are craving responsibility from their elected leaders, and submitting a budget two months late that contains more spending, more tax increases and never balances is no way to run a government - not even close.
"In order to set this country on a path to fiscal responsibility and economic growth, we need to balance the budget while saving and strengthening Medicare, protecting seniors' health care choices, and truly reforming our broken tax system. The House has already approved such a plan with my support, and I look forward to continuing my work with colleagues from either party or chamber to make its proposals the law of the land.
"Our nation is broke, we know how to fix it, and it's not with more reckless spending and nearly $600 billion of tax increases on families and small businesses who need to make ends meet."

Press release from Representative Steve King (R, IA-04):

Washington, DC- Congressman Steve King released the following statement in response to President Obama's budget request for Fiscal Year 2014:
"After giving a head-fake to the media that his new budget would move to the center, the President today released another left-wing, tax-and-spend budget that is out of step with what this country needs. After repeating the word 'balance' time and time again, President Obama today followed the Senate Democrats' lead by offering a budget that never balances.
Just last month, House Republicans made the tough choices the American people are demanding. Instead of throwing up our hands and demanding more from hard-working taxpayers, we passed a budget that made the tough spending choices that are necessary, and got to balance in ten years without raising taxes. The President's budget, on the other hand, would raise taxes another $1.1 trillion. That's on top of last year's $600 billion tax increase and ObamaCare's $1 trillion tax increase. We're already on track to have well above average tax revenues for years to come, but when it comes to tax revenue, it is clear that for the President, too much is not enough.
Like his past budgets, President Obama's new budget pulls out all the tricks: tax increases disguised as tax reform and budget gimmicks disguised as spending cuts, yet even then his new budget adds $8.2 trillion in debt. The President's budget itself is an admission that you can never get to balance by chasing ever higher spending with ever higher taxes.
President Obama says his goal 'is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance,' but the CBO just recently said that our debt will have 'serious negative consequences,' including lower wages for American workers, an increased risk for a financial crisis, and a huge increase in debt payments. We need to balance our budget. House Republicans didn't 'chase' balance, we delivered it. It's disappointing that the President refuses to show similar leadership."

It's important to note that U.S. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget (which Latham and King voted for last month) also fails to balance the budget in the next decade.

UPDATE: Representative Bruce Braley didn't send out any written comment about the president's budget, but he answered a question about the budget during his weekly press call today (audio here). He started by saying that in a "complex document" like the federal budget, there are things he would like to see implemented and other ideas that "are of grave concern." My transcript, beginning around the 10:10 mark:

I am very concerned about the president's proposal to try to reduce the deficit by switching to a chained CPI calculation, particularly because budgets are moral documents, and they reflect our nation's priorities. I believe it's immoral to balance the budget on the back of seniors and disabled Americans, who are the ones who will be most dramatically affected by switching the consumer price index adjustment for Social Security benefits.
There are a host of other ways we could address that problem, and addressing it in a way that is going to take money out of the hands of Iowans--for example, if this were to become law, and you lived to [be] 85 [years old], you would see a 9.7 percent reduction in what you receive from Social Security over your lifetime. Many Iowans who are seniors and disabled are living on fixed incomes right now. That [chained] CPI does not often reflect the real cost of spending that seniors and disabled Iowans deal with on an annual basis, and so I'm concerned about that.

Braley went on to say that he was "excited" to see the president's budget focus on developing a "national manufacturing strategy" for the 21st century, as well as a "significant investment n infrastructure."

I have not seen any press release from Senator Tom Harkin today about the president's budget, but he is a loud voice against the chained CPI proposal. in the last few days his political action committee TOM-PAC has sent out multiple mass e-mails to supporters decrying the president's Social Security cuts. The latest arrived on April 9:

Dear [first name],
Tomorrow, President Obama will release his budget. We already know what we're likely to see in it: unconscionable cuts to Social Security through a scheme called "chained CPI."
Now is our chance to make a huge statement, and show the President, Congress, and the press that we're not going to stand by while Social Security is gutted.
Join more than 9,300 activists like you and me to demand that the President stand up for Social Security
Social Security is one of our nation's most important programs -- one that, by law, cannot contribute to the deficit. But that hasn't stopped Republicans from trying to use the chained CPI as a way to sneak benefit cuts in under the radar.
Now, in an ill-advised attempt to negotiate with Republican leaders that have no intention of playing fair, President Obama has put those same cuts on the table. We can't let it happen, and we only have a matter of hours to let President Obama know that this is unacceptable.
Social Security is too important to be used as a bargaining chip -- much less a wasted one.
Join more than 9,300 activists like you and me to demand that the President stand up for Social Security.
This is one of the most important issues we're going face in a while. I need you standing with me.
Sincerely,
Senator Tom Harkin

Progress Iowa released the following statement today:

Iowa's Congressional Delegation Should Reject President Obama's Proposed Social Security Cuts
Progress Iowa launches petition calling on all Members of Iowa's Congressional Delegation to Reject the chained CPI and cuts to Social Security
DES MOINES -- Progress Iowa today launched a petition calling on members of Iowa's congressional delegation to reject the cuts to Social Security proposed by President Obama in the budget being released today. The President's proposal would change the way the federal government measures inflation, by switching to a chained consumer price index (chained CPI) and resulting in decreased Social Security benefits.
In addition to launching an online petition, Progress Iowa Executive Director Matt Sinovic issued the following statement:
"The President's chained CPI proposal is a cut to Social Security -- plain and simple. We need to know where our Members of Congress stand on Social Security, a program at the heart of our country's commitment to ensuring that all of us can retire with dignity."
"The chained CPI is a politician's parlor trick and doesn't adequately factor in the realities facing Iowa seniors. It calculates the cost of living by assuming that seniors can make the choice to buy less expensive products. But because of rising health-care costs, many seniors living on a low, fixed income won't have that choice; instead they will be forced to choose between buying medicine and buying groceries."
"Social Security is not an entitlement, it is an earned benefit we all pay to receive, and is crucial to supporting current and future generations of retirees. Will our elected officials stand up for Iowa's seniors, or will they be fooled by a budget gimmick that does far more harm than good?"
According to a recent AARP policy analysis, using the chained CPI would be detrimental to Social Security beneficiaries, particularly the oldest Americans and disabled children:
"Changing the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) would have a detrimental impact on the economic well being of older and disabled Americans and their family members who receive benefits from Social Security. Small reductions to the annual COLA will accumulate over time so that the largest reductions in benefits will be on the oldest beneficiaries and the long-term disabled. For example, 92-year-old beneficiaries who were on the program for 30 years would see an 8.4% cut in benefits. Disabled children could face even larger benefit cuts over their lifetime. Oldest Americans are the least able to absorb cuts to their benefits as they are more reliant on Social Security for their income and have higher out-of-pocket medical spending and a higher poverty rate than younger Americans."
Protecting Social Security and the Iowans who depend on the income it provides should be of critical importance for all Members of Congress. To view the petition launched by Progress Iowa today, click here or visit: http://signon.org/sign/say-no-...
###
Background:
AARP: Proposed changes to Social Security's Cost-of-Living Adjustment: What Would They Mean for Beneficiaries?
http://www.aarp.org/content/da...
The Chained CPI: A Painful Cut in Social Security Benefits and a Stealth Tax Hike
http://www.cepr.net/documents/...

Statement from Dave Loebsack on the latest Postal Service news:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement after the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) announced that they would be canceling their plans to end Saturday delivery.
"The announcement by the Postal Service that it has canceled its misguided plan to end Saturday delivery is good news for the people of Iowa. Saturday delivery is important to Iowa's economy, seniors and small businesses. Now it is time for Congress to do its job and act to give the USPS the tools necessary to avoid this situation in the future. The USPS would not be in the financial situation it is today if it had not been required to pre-pay retirement funds, which no other agency or business is required to do. I will continue to push for commonsense legislation that will responsibly restore USPS's fiscal solvency while protecting Iowan's access to postal services "
Loebsack is a cosponsor of legislation, which would address the USPS's financial needs without the upheaval and job loss. He has urged leadership on multiple occasions to address postal reform as soon as possible and is currently a cosponsor of H. Res. 30, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the UPSP should continue with its 6-day mail delivery service.

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) comment on the postal delivery news:

Washington, D.C. - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today released the following statement after the United States Postal Service announced they've cancelled plans to end Saturday delivery this summer:
"I've been a strong advocate for the Postal Service continuing a six day delivery schedule so I'm relieved that they have decided to continue Saturday mail delivery. Iowans have long relied on the post office for quick and dependable mail service, and I'm glad to hear they can continue to depend on that service.
"Their decision to continue Saturday delivery means that the Postal Service understands it must find another way to solve their problems that doesn't place the burden unfairly on small towns and rural Americans.
"Without question, the Postal Service needs to change to survive, but until there is a comprehensive plan in place, we cannot allow thoughtless changes to hurt Iowa businesses and Iowa residents."

UPDATE: The National Republican Congressional Committee's chairman blasted Obama for his budget's "shocking attack on seniors." Any House Democrats who embrace this proposal don't deserve to be re-elected next year.

The NRCC sent out a press release attacking Loebsack today, but that piece focused on continued deficit spending rather than Social Security.

Dreams Do Come True, Dave
More Spending, Higher Taxes, Never Balances: Finally A Budget Dave Loebsack Can Support
WASHINGTON - After a two month wait, President Obama is finally introducing his budget today-and it's exactly the kind of budget Dave Loebsack has been waiting for.
The president's budget will do real harm to Iowa families by raising taxes, increasing spending, and never, ever balancing. This will hurt job creation and continue the middle class stagnation that has become a hallmark of the Obama-Pelosi era.
"President Obama's budget is a dream come true for Dave Loebsack," said NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek. "By sharing Obama's belief in an unbalanced budget full of more spending and higher taxes, Dave Loebsack is standing in the way of job creation and more take-home pay for middle-class families."
White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer Admitted That President Obama's Budget Will Never Balance. "President Obama will not propose a balanced budget in the new fiscal 2014 spending plan that he'll submit to Congress next week, a White House official said Wednesday. White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said the budget will reduce deficits by an unspecified amount, but it won't achieve balance like the spending plan that has been approved by House Republicans." (Dave Boyer, "Aide: Deficits To Endure In Obama's Planned New Budget," The Washington Times, 4/3/13)
President Obama's Budget Will Include $580 Billion In New Taxes. "The main deficit reduction elements of the plan incorporate an offer Obama made to Boehner in December when both sought to avoid automatic, across-the-board spending cuts and broad tax increases. Obama's plan includes $580 billion in new taxes that Republicans oppose." (Jim Kuhnhenn, "Obama: Budget Not 'Ideal' But Has 'Tough Reforms,'" The Associated Press, 4/6/13)
The Budget Proposal Would Only Cut $600 Billion From The Deficit. "The White House said the budget would include $1.8 trillion in deficit-reduction measures, but about $1.2 trillion of it will be used to replace the across-the-board spending cuts that began March 1, known as the sequester. That means the deficit would drop just $600 billion more over 10 years than under current law." (Janet Hook And Colleen McCain Nelson, "Obama Budget Draws Fire," The Wall Street Journal, 4/5/13)
President Obama's Budget Proposes More Spending. "Obama also is proposing more spending on some programs, such as education, that the administration argues is important to ensure future economic growth." (Roger Runningen and Heidi Przybyla, "Obama Budget to Include Social Security Debt-Cutting Plan," Bloomberg, 4/5/13)
President Obama's Budget Is Over Two Months Late. "Obama is submitting his budget two months late, after aides scrambled to deal with the end-of-year "fiscal cliff" and then the March 1 deadline for sequestration." (Zachary A. Goldfarb and Karen Tumulty, "Obama Budget Would Cut Entitlements In Exchange For Tax Increases," The Washington Post, 4/5/13)

Latham, King choose Heritage Foundation over preserving military heritage

desmoinesdem — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:08:00 GMT

Preserving battlefield sites from early American history would seem to be promising ground for bipartisan agreement. Don't we all want future generations to be able to visit and learn about historically important places in this country's pasts?

Today more than half the Republicans in the U.S. House, including Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04), voted against a bill designed to preserve Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields. As Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill, the vote reflected a call to arms from conservative Heritage Foundation.
Kasperowicz explained what was at stake in today's vote.

The American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act, H.R. 1033, reauthorizes and expands a program under which the federal government provides grants to states to buy and preserve battlefield sites. The bill would also expand the program to include Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites.
Earlier in the day, Heritage said reauthorizing the bill would mean $46 million in new spending on land acquisition, at a time when National Park Service officials have said the sequester will lead to hiring freezes and the closure of existing facilities.
"Adding more land into the system - be it at the federal, state or local level - in the current budgetary environment is irresponsible," Heritage wrote.
During brief debate on the bill, no member rose to speak against it.

Usually at least one House member will make the case against a bill, if there's a reasonable case to be made. But not today.

Here's the roll call on H.R. 1033, "To authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program." All 182 Democrats present supported the bill, including Iowa's Bruce Braley (IA-01). Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was absent.

Only 101 House Republicans supported this bill. Latham and King were among the 122 members who went along with the Heritage Foudation's decree. Why make waves with conservative opinion leaders in Washington? It might bring down a House member's rating on some Heritage scorecard next year.

Although Iowa doesn't have any Revolutionary War or War of 1812 battlefields, anyone who has visited significant battlefield sites should be able to appreciate their historic value. It's a shame Iowa's Republican representatives stood with a beltway interest group instead.

By the way, 283 votes to 122 is a large majority, but in this case the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass, because it was brought up under a suspension of House rules.

Steve King comments on possible IA-Sen race

desmoinesdem — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:48:00 GMT

Appearing on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program today, Representative Steve King (IA-04) acknowledged that the open U.S. Senate race will be a "slight uphill battle" for any Republican, but asserted that he can see a "path to victory" if he decides to run.

I am still 100 percent convinced that King will opt out of the Senate race eventually, citing personal reasons (not political reality). Nevertheless, his comments on the Senate race are worth reading closely, so I've enclosed them below. You can watch the whole interview or read the full transcript here.

King claimed to be unable to think of any positions he has taken that are "out of step with Iowans." Near the end of this post, I've suggested two issues that would become central features in Bruce Braley's case against King.
As expected, King repeated that he is carefully analyzing a possible Senate race and hasn't made a decision yet. Even a quick look at last year's results in IA-04 suggests that King lost the middle of the electorate, but today he dismissed the suggestion that he is too conservative to win a statewide election in Iowa.

Henderson: Some of your critics have suggested that you could not win a statewide race because of your persona as a very conservative republican. What is that polling data that you mentioned showing you?
King: Well, I wouldn't be able to discuss any real numbers with that polling data here today, Kay. But, you know, I remember hearing that in almost everything that I've tried from a business standpoint to a political standpoint. You can't succeed in business, Steve King, because you don't have any money, you don't have any base to start from. That was 1975. I couldn't succeed when I challenged a 24 year incumbent republican state senator because I didn't know the political arena. And I couldn't win out on a four-way primary in 2002 because of the redistricting plan. So those kind of things, there are always going to be naysayers and detractors. This is, though, first an analytical decision and I think any republican has a slight uphill battle in this state because Iowa has turned a little bit to the left. This won't be a presidential race, President Obama will not be on the ballot and I think that the top of the ticket will be able to control this a lot more than if it had been a presidential year. [...]
Henderson: You just said something interesting, that it will be a slightly uphill battle for any republican who runs. Why?
King: Because we know that President Obama ran very strongly in Iowa and a lot of that machinery is still in place. And I expect he would come in and support the democratic nominee. He made, what, three trips into Iowa in this last race and I saw also President Clinton came in, in the last congressional race. I can't imagine they wouldn't use all of those tools in a U.S. Senate race coming up in 2014.
Borg: Without being specific, political data are coming in on your polling and, again, not specific but you have been speaking in percentages up to now. You said 60/40 and so on that you would or would not run. What is the percentage at right now?
King: Well, the needle is a little over 50/50 and it just really hasn't changed very much. I know now that I've got to get to that final analysis and then we're going to get to a decision relatively soon. But the analytical part -- I'll tell you what is different is this, that until we had the data I couldn't lay out a strategy that I could say with confidence we can build a strategy to win. Now that I see the data I can see that path to victory.
Obradovich: And what does that path to victory look like?
King: Well, it looks like any race in this state over, for U.S. Senate, when this is the first open seat we've had in, what, almost four decades. It will be a jump ball at the end. I think it will be a race that is decided by one percent or less and that would be the case whether a democrat wins or a republicans wins. I think it's going to be very close.
Obradovich: What do you think that this campaign needs to be about?
King: Oh, I'm glad you asked me that. It doesn't need to be about all of the things that the last campaign was about. The difficulty here for a republican is to run on issues. And the other side wants to change the topic. But here's what it needs to be about -- it needs to be about whether we are going to get to a balanced budget and I want to pass a balanced budget amendment to our United States Constitution and do that out of the House and the Senate before we raise the debt ceiling. It's one of the things I'll continue to push on until that vote comes up. Second one needs to be what are we going to do with the Affordable Care Act? I'm for repealing it, I've long been for repealing it and when we see this stack of applications and the premiums going up as high as 400% I think the debate will start in January about what we do with Obamacare.
Henderson: George W. Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, indicated that you might be a target should you choose to run from republicans who might like a candidate who is not as conservative as you to be the party's nominee for the U.S. Senate. How do you address those who say that you are a Todd Akin like person who is prone to saying unusual, wild things?
King: Well, the first part with that would be from St. Patrick's Day last year until Election Day November 6th, eight months I had, on every public schedule I had one to three tracking cameras on me hired by democrats in the Vilsack campaign. Their effort was to try to catch a bit of a phrase or a bit of a clip that they could put into a commercial to run against me. In eight months of constant surveillance they didn't get a single second that they could put into a television or a radio ad. That would be one answer. Second one would be, if Karl Rove is concerned about whether I have verbal discipline I think he would have to admit today that he lacked that when he commented critically of me.
Obradovich: Well, you've mentioned in that fundraising letter that I mentioned before that republicans, your evidence that republicans don't have to change their brand -- what kind of message is that if you choose not to run statewide?
King: It's the same message either way. I am who I am and what I believe in and those that are critics and following up a little bit also more on Kay's question too is that you do not change your principles for the sake of political expediency.
Borg: But I think that what she is asking, if I'm right Kathie, is that what does it say to people if you don't think that you can win on that brand statewide? Is that what you're asking?
Obradovich: Yeah, that's what I'm asking --
King: I think I could win on that brand statewide.
Obradovich: You think you can win on that brand statewide. Okay. So --
King: I think we must. Even more importantly we still -- even if we didn't think we could win, and I do, we must follow through on our principles. Republicans can not rebrand ourselves by compromising our principles. Just because the American people and Iowans re-elected Barack Obama is not a reason for us to abandon our principles.
Obradovich: There are republicans in Iowa, though, who have been saying that a Steve King is not the best candidate to run statewide, that they want somebody that they feel will be perhaps a little bit more attractive to moderates, people in the political middle. What do you say to them?
King: Well, my answer to that would be, can you point out a vote or a position with which you disagree with me? Which position have I taken that is out of step with Iowans? I know of none. When I look at the issues out there and the information that we're working with, Iowans support the positions that I have taken. And so I think that is a strong thing and I think there are many that didn't come out in this last election because they were not energized, that is on the conservative side. I think we should have learned that if we elect a candidate that doesn't stand for very much that we lose a lot of voters over on the conservative side of the agenda and I'm a blue collar guy, I'm a hands on guy and that means too that there are a lot of people that are independents and there are a lot of working, discerning democrats that identify with the positions that I take and the track record and the life history that is part of who I am.

After King's interview ended, Lee Newspapers State Capitol Bureau Chief Mike Wiser commented that the big news was King admitting this race will be an "uphill battle" for any Republican. Like Wiser, I was surprised to hear King say that. Although he pivoted quickly to say his internal polling data shows he could build a winning strategy, I question whether those numbers reflect a realistic "path to victory" for him.

I agree with King about one thing: he is more verbally disciplined than his critics give him credit for. He did not make any huge flubs on the campaign trail last year, nor did he give Vilsack a lot of openings during their seven head to head debates. After watching or listening to five of those debates and many interviews with King, I have reached the conclusion that he plans almost everything he says in public carefully--especially the "crazy" and offensive comments on the highlight reel featured in Vilsack's campaign ads.

King's campaign put together a strong and coherent narrative last year: I am who I am, and I'll always tell you what I believe. You'll never have to guess where I stand, and I'll work very hard to watch your dollars.

Here's the thing, though. Even with such message discipline and well-crafted advertisements, King defeated Vilsack by only about 30,000 votes in a district with 50,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. He fell a little short of Mitt Romney's vote total in the fourth Congressional district, as Romney lost Iowa by about 90,000 votes.

Granted, a midterm election will have far lower turnout than last year's presidential race, especially among no-party voters. I still have trouble understanding where King's "path to victory" lies. In eastern Iowa and the Des Moines suburbs, voters are not going to buy what he's selling.

I can help King out with this one:

Which position have I taken that is out of step with Iowans? I know of none. When I look at the issues out there and the information that we're working with, Iowans support the positions that I have taken.

I know of many, but here are the top two that Bruce Braley would use in a Senate race:

1. King repeatedly supported Paul Ryan's budget, which ends Medicare as we know it while raising taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts that help millionaires and billionaires. Braley relentlessly pressed this case against his 2012 Republican challenger Ben Lange.

2. King even voted for the House Republican Study Committee's budget, which is so radical that most House Republicans (including Paul Ryan and Tom Latham) rejected it.

Any comments on King as a politician or next year's IA-Sen race are welcome in this thread.

IA-03: Mike Sherzan drops out, citing health issues

desmoinesdem — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:48:00 GMT

Mike Sherzan announced by e-mail this afternoon that he will not run for Congress in Iowa's third district because of "personal health issues." His full statement is after the jump. Sherzan says his campaign will return all contributions collected since he launched his candidacy last month.

I'm sure everyone in the Bleeding Heartland community joins me in wishing Sherzan a full recovery from his health problems. Any comments about the IA-03 race are welcome in this thread. Other potential Democratic candidates include former State Senator Staci Appel of Warren County and Dr. Andy McGuire, a health insurance company executive who ran for lieutenant governor in the 2006 Democratic primary.

Whoever takes on ten-term incumbent Tom Latham will face an uphill battle in the district. On paper, it looks like a tossup with 158,877 registered Democrats, 165,134 Republicans, and 156,973 no-party voters as of April 2013. However, Latham has routinely outperformed the top of the Republican ticket in his re-election campaigns.
April 1 press release:

Mike Sherzan Halts Candidacy for Congress of Iowa's 3rd District
I regret to announce that I am halting my campaign for Congress of Iowa's 3rd District. It's been a real honor to meet with Iowans across the district over the past few months. There's a real desire to see a problem solver representing our state in Congress. I had hoped to be that person. Unfortunately, due to personal health issues, my campaign cannot continue.
I am aware this decision will disappoint my supporters. In the coming weeks, our campaign will be returning all contributions directly to my supporters. I am very grateful for their trust in me to improve our representation in Washington. I have been honored to be a candidate for U.S. House in the 3RD District of Iowa.
Finally, I have made this decision based solely upon my individual circumstances and what I believe to be in my best interest and that of my family. Ending my candidacy is very disappointing to me personally. In doing so, I wish all the people of the 3rd District of Iowa the representation they deserve, and to that end I will support the Democratic nominee.
Michael T. Sherzan

Supreme Court marriage linkfest: Federal DOMA doomed?

desmoinesdem — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:31:00 GMT

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. Unlike yesterday's hearing on California's same-sex marriage ban, this case will affect many Iowans directly. The court's ruling on DOMA will determine whether thousands of married LGBT couples in Iowa are eligible for benefits granted to married citizens under federal law.

Lots of links are after the jump, but the enduring sound bite from the day will surely be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comment: "You're saying [...] there are two kinds of marriages, the full marriage, and this sort of skim milk marriage."
The Hill posted the full transcript and audio from today's oral arguments here.

The Alliance for Justice posted Ginsburg's point about second-class "skim milk marriage" here.

For the SCOTUS blog, Amy Howe discussed today's hearing in plain English.

More audio clips and analysis of the arguments are on this page of the Alliance for Justice site. Here's what the case is all about:

Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies more than a thousand different different federal rights to legally-married same-sex couples. Those benefits range from Social Security death benefits to the right to take family medical leave. DOMA even can separate spouses of different nationalities.
DOMA also has an impact on estate taxes. DOMA prohibited the federal government from recognizing the marriage of Edith Windsor to her lifelong partner, Dr. Thea Spyer. As a result, Ms. Windsor was hit with a huge bill for inheritance taxes. Ms. Windsor sued, arguing that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Now age 83, Ms. Windsor has taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in Windsor has the ability to finally recognize that discrimination against LGBT Americans violates the Constitution. Alternatively, the Court could hold that DOMA violates the power of states to define the rights and benefits of their LGBT citizens.

This chart on the New York Times website explains who would be affected by various possible Supreme Court actions. If the court upholds section 3 of the DOMA, nothing changes. If the court strikes down that part of the law, "Married same-sex couples in the nine states that allow such unions, along with the District of Columbia, become subject to more than 1,000 federal laws and programs and start to receive federal benefits." Nothing would change in states where same-sex marriage is banned. A third possibility: "The court could decide that it lacks jurisdiction because the two sides - the plaintiff and the Obama administration - agree that the law is unconstitutional and House Republicans do not have standing to defend it." It's not clear how things would play out after that point.

Incidentally, several of the conservative Supreme Court justices seemed outraged that the Obama administration broke with precent by deciding not to defend a federal law challenged in court.

By the same token, some of the justices sounded uncomfortable "with providing standing to House Republicans seeking to compel enforcement of DOMA."

After listening to today's hearing, most analysts agreed that at least five justices seem prepared to strike down DOMA. Many articles on the hearing are linked here. Sam Baker reported for The Hill,

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, seemed to agree with the argument that DOMA interferes with states' traditional right to define marriage.
"The question is whether the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," Kennedy said.

Adam Liptak and Peter Baker reported for the New York Times,

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who most likely holds the decisive vote, returned again and again to the theme that deciding who is married is a matter for the states. The federal government, he said, should respect "the historic commitment of marriage and questions of the rights of children to the states." [...]
If the 1996 law stands, Justice Kennedy said, "you are at real risk with running in conflict with what has always been the essence" of state power, which he said was to regulate marriage, divorce and custody.
All four members of the court's liberal wing questioned the constitutionality of the law, though they largely focused on equal protection principles rather than on the limits of federal power.

That's the good news. But if you support marriage equality in every state, the SCOTUS blog's Tom Goldstein has some bad news for you:

A majority of the Court seems poised in Windsor to invalidate DOMA Section 3 on the theory that the federal government has no interest in adopting a definition of marriage applicable to 1100 statutory provisions that as a practical matter alters the very nature of what it is to be "married." That role, the Court will rule, is historically reserved to the states. So DOMA is a federalism case. [...]
But if DOMA is going to be decided as a federalism case, Hollingsworth becomes a much harder case for the plaintiffs. That ruling in Windsor implies that California should have a parallel right to decide the definition of marriage for itself - i.e., that Proposition 8 should be upheld.
In fact, there is a realistic chance that the Court's most conservative Justices understood that dynamic from the beginning and for that reason voted to grant certiorari in Hollinsgworth. In effect, they would put the Court in the box fully grappling with the implications of a ruling invalidating DOMA. To then also invalidate Proposition 8, the Court would have to go quite far in applying heightened scrutiny and invalidating the traditional definition of marriage, notwithstanding its professed concerns for states' rights.

Before this week, some people had speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts might be open to striking down DOMA. However, today he suggested that gays and lesbians don't need courts to protect their rights anymore.

Looking for another avenue to undercut the case that DOMA was the product of anti-gay animus, Roberts pointed to the "sea change" in public attitudes towards homosexuality and suggested that gays and lesbians were "politically powerful"-a description that would prevent laws dealing with sexual orientation from being subject to heightened scrutiny. "As far as I can tell," Roberts said, "political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case." Until fairly recently, gays and lesbians were barred from employment by states and the federal government, and until 2003, states criminalized homosexual sex-and would still be able to do so, if several of the justices now sitting on the court had their way. Just ask Antonin Scalia, who argued last year that laws criminalizing homosexual sex were constitutional because "for 200 years, it was criminal in every state." But for Roberts, recent developments in public opinion undo that entire history of discrimination-and render moot the motives of DOMA's authors.

Adam Serwer noted at Mother Jones that the attorney defending DOMA today, former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement

never mentioned procreation or potential harm to children. He stuck to a process-oriented defense.
The Defense of Marriage Act, Clement contended, only defined marriage as a hetero endeavor for the purpose of federal laws and, therefore, wasn't an imposition on the states, even though the law was enacted because legislators feared the states would legalize or recognize same-sex marriage. With DOMA, the federal government was merely seeking "uniformity," Clement insisted, ensuring that mentions of "marriage" in federal law only applied to unions between men and women. That desire for clarity, he maintained, was enough to justify the law.
Searching for a precedent to justify a federal role in defining marriage, Clement invoked the US government recognition of the marriages of freed slaves during Reconstruction. "In the wake of the Civil War and in Reconstruction, Congress specifically wanted to provide benefits for spouses of freed slaves who fought for the Union," Clement said. He seemed to be unaware of the irony of citing a federal decision to extend marriage rights to one group in order to justify denying such rights to another group.

Regarding the politics of DOMA, Greg Sargent noticed that some Congressional Republicans are reluctant to talk about taking this case to the Supreme Court.

Not Representative Steve King of Iowa's fourth Congressional district. On March 26, his office released this web video and a press release highlighting this statement by King:

"The Constitution never contemplated marriage being anything other than between a man and a woman," said King. "And for the United States Supreme Court to come to an opposite conclusion would mean, I think, a real distortion of the Constitution, which is a contractual guarantee between each of the generations."

Steven Mazie considers how the case against same-sex marriage has evolved in recent years.

One person who hasn't evolved is Bob Vander Plaats, one of Iowa's most-obsessed opponents of marriage equality. He was in Washington this week for a marriage rally. Radio Iowa's Dar Danielson reported,

Ladies and Gentlemen, America needs leadership today," Vander Plaats said. "Quite frankly we are here at this moment because too many leaders, too many moms and dads, too many teachers, too many pastors and churches, too many politicians and elected office holders, backed away from the microphone when it was their turn to speak." [...]
"Now we all know that it is the norm for politicians to toss about from poll to poll and from wave to wave and put their finger in the wind," Vander Plaats says.
"But what we want the Supreme Court to do is look to our founders, look to the wisdom of Bill Graham, look to the wisdom of Pope Francis, not to the perpetual posturing of politicians and define marriage once and for all as a union between a man and a woman." Vander Plaats told the crowd the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the state law banning gay marriage created a "credibility chasm" between the people of the state and the court that continues today.
He said the U.S. Supreme court risks creating the same problem. "Usurping the people's voice and vote will send a constitutional shiver down America's freedom spine. And it will be the height of judicial overreach, where all of us will know that all of our freedoms - no matter which one you hold very dear - is now up for grabs to an unelected court," Vander Plaats says.

I'm pretty sure the framers of the Constitution didn't want the Pope or preachers like Billy Graham to determine our government's policy. And when the Republican-controlled Congress brought DOMA up for a vote during the 1996 presidential election year, that was the ultimate act of political posturing. So many Democrats otherwise considered liberal felt pressure to support that law, which passed both the House and the Senate by large majorities. All five Iowans in the U.S. House at the time voted yes: Republicans Jim Nussle (IA-01), Jim Leach (IA-02), Jim Ross Lightfoot (IA-03), Greg Ganske (IA-04), and Tom Latham (IA-05). Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin also voted for the DOMA. Harkin was up for re-election in 1996, and Lightfoot was his challenger.

Earlier this year, Harkin and Democratic Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) all signed a friend of the court brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down section 3 of the DOMA.

House approves Paul Ryan's budget: How the Iowans voted

desmoinesdem — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:56:00 GMT

Yesterday the U.S. House approved a fiscal year 2014 budget prepared by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. The bill also sets budget levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023. Bleeding Heartland covered Iowa reaction to the latest Ryan budget here. After the jump I have details on yesterday's vote and statements released by members of the Iowa delegation.

Despite the spin from some Congressional Republicans and Governor Terry Branstad, it's important to remember that Ryan's budget is not balanced and will not be balanced even 10 years from now. Both the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have noted that Ryan does not say how he would offset trillions in lost revenue from income tax cuts he proposes. In addition, the Ryan budget "understates defense spending by $100 billion over the next ten years" and assumes that the 2010 health care reform law will be repealed, which obviously won't happen. The Ryan plan isn't about eliminating the federal deficit, it's a plan to end Medicare as a single-payer program and change the role of the federal government in the lives of low-income Americans.
Not a single House Democrat supported the Ryan budget yesterday. All 197 Democrats who were present voted no, joined by 10 Republicans. It appears that some of the Republicans opposed the budget because in their opinion, it doesn't cut spending enough.

However, 221 House Republicans, including Iowa's Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04), voted yes on the Ryan budget.

Before the final vote on passage, House members rejected five substitute amendments yesterday, offering different visions for the federal budget. The House Progressive Caucus alternative, which you can read about here, only drew 84 votes in favor. I noticed that neither Braley nor Loebsack voted for the Progressive budget.

The vote on the House Republican Study Committee's budget was the most interesting. Most of the Democratic caucus voted "present" rather than no, as a way of forcing House Republicans to vote down the proposal, which is even more radical than the Ryan budget.

The budget plan would cut discretionary spending to 2008 levels, and then freeze them there until the budget balances in 2017. It also seeks to simplify the tax code and would move Medicare to a premium-support system.

Steve King was one of the 104 Republicans who supported the House Republican Study Committee's budget. Tom Latham was among the 118 Republicans to vote against it. Braley and Loebsack were among the 14 Democrats who went on record voting "no" on this amendment; the rest of the Democrats voted "present."

Statement released by Representative Bruce Braley (emphasis in original):

Braley Statement on Vote against Ryan Budget
Washington, D.C. - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today released the following statement after he voted against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget bill:
"The Ryan Budget balances the federal budget on the backs of seniors and working Americans, and that's why I voted against it.
"By changing Medicare as we know it, the Ryan Budget puts the promise of Medicare at risk for future generations of retirees who have paid into the program their whole lives. This budget also does nothing to address the damaging across-the-board budget cuts that went into effect March 1st.
"Finally, I'm disappointed by the hypocrisy of this budget. It abolishes Obamacare, yet continues to rely on $716 billion in Medicare savings created by Obamacare. And it includes revenues created by a small tax increase on the wealthiest Americans that started January 1st, even though Paul Ryan and his political allies fought that every step of the way. If House Republicans had been willing to even consider these new revenues a year ago, we wouldn't be facing the problems caused by 'sequestration' and its damaging cuts to vital federal programs.
"The American people want a balanced approach to deficit reduction, and they're sick of these political games. It's time that Republicans and Democrats came together to do the hard work of reducing the debt."

Statement released by Representative Dave Loebsack:

Loebsack Statement on the FY2014 Republican Budget
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement after the House of Representatives voted on the Republican budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2014.
"A budget is a set of priorities, a vision of the direction you believe the country should be moving towards. Unfortunately, the Republican budget that passed the House today would balance the budget on the backs of seniors and middle class families, those who did not get us into this fiscal mess. We've got to grow the economy, create jobs and substantially reduce the unsustainable deficit over the long-term, but it must be done in a balanced way. In order to do that, Republicans and Democrats have to sit down with one another and truly make the difficult decisions that are necessary to get our economy moving again. We must lay our political differences aside and pass a commonsense budget."

Statement from Representative Tom Latham:

US HOUSE PASSES BALANCED BUDGET PLAN THAT WOULD GROW ECONOMY, SAVE AND STRENGTHEN RETIREMENT PROGRAMS
House GOP Plan Is Stark Contrast with Senate & House Democrats' Lack of Concern over Deficits
Washington, Mar 21 - Iowa Congressman Tom Latham voted today for a House budget resolution that would balance the budget in ten years, help encourage economic and job growth for a nation still struggling, and save and strengthen the important retirement program promises and personal health care choices of seniors. Latham noted that the plan helps make government sustainable and more accountable to Americans in the long term, ensuring that Washington does not continue spending beyond its means.
"Hardworking, responsible Iowans prioritize and balance their own finances every month, and they deserve nothing less from their elected officials," Congressman Latham said. "The budget plan approved today balances the budget while saving and strengthening Medicare, protecting the health care choices of seniors, fixing our broken tax system, and setting us on a course to responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars and job growth. It achieves the basic goals of accountability and fiscal soundness that are necessary to get our economy moving again."
The House budget stands in stark contrast to the Senate Democrats' proposal, which allows an increased level of spending that results in endless budget deficits, and hikes taxes by as much as $1.5 trillion. House Democrats also offered a budget that never balances but does smother American families with over $1.2 trillion in taxes, all while increasing federal spending by $5 trillion more than the GOP plan over the next decade. House and Senate Democrats clearly and publically rejected the idea of putting forward a plan that puts the federal budget on a path to balance. Both the House and Senate Democrat plans also ignore the need to address the impending crisis in the Medicare program -- instead allowing the safety net to unravel, jeopardizing the retirement security of America's seniors. Latham added that this presents Americans with two clear visions for the future of the country.
"Government has its limits, and the potential of the American people has none. While the Senate and House Democrats' tax-and-spend blueprints reject this truth, the House-passed budget embraces it, giving us a clear view of who is on the side of the Iowa taxpayer and who isn't."
Additionally, the House budget guarantees the solvency of Medicare for future generations while also protecting the personal health care choices of seniors from decisions by Washington bureaucrats. In addition to preserving the program, the budget offers future enrollees a voluntary option to choose an insurance plan from a menu of choices, similar to the health plan that is available to members of Congress. Among the options offered is traditional Medicare.

The statement from Representative Steve King (emphasis in original) does not mention having voted for the House Republican Study Committee alternative.

King Votes to Balance the Budget
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Steve King released the following statement after voting in favor of the House Republican budget (H.Con.Res.25). The budget would achieve balance in the next 10 years by fully repealing ObamaCare and slowing the growth of government spending from 5% a year to 3.4% a year. The House Republican budget saves and strengthens Medicare and applies the lessons of the successful welfare reform efforts of the 1990's to other means-tested programs. The budget would also fix our broken tax code, getting rid of special interest breaks and loopholes while lowering rates for families and businesses in a revenue-neutral fashion.
"When I first came to Congress, I went to the Chairman of the Budget Committee and asked 'Where's our balanced budget?' The answer I received was, 'A balanced budget is impossible.' Despite years of overspending since then by President Obama and Congressional Democrats," said King, "this House Republican budget we passed today does what a budget should do: it gets to balance.
This is a pro-growth budget that begins the process of returning the federal government to its proper role. By repealing ObamaCare, this budget sets the stage for real, common-sense reforms to reduce health care costs for American families and businesses. By scrapping our current tax code and replacing it with a simpler, fairer, and more competitive one, this budget will put people back to work, increase Americans' take-home pay, and get our economy growing in ways we haven't seen for far too long. Finally, by stopping Washington's practice of spending money we don't have, this budget will get to balance and begin the process of warding off the debt crisis and austerity measures we're now seeing in Europe.
Republicans continue to make the hard choices necessary to govern. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in four years because they have been unwilling to put their plans on paper and show the American people just how much taxing and spending is needed to sustain their vision of government. Now that Senate Democrats have been forced by the House of Representatives and by the American people to put a budget forward, we can see with our eyes what we've known all along: their budgets will never balance, would revive discredited stimulus spending, would allow our nation's entitlement programs to go broke, and would raise taxes a trillion dollars. That's unacceptable. The American people deserve better, and today's House Republican budget delivers that better choice."

Senate, House avert government shutdown: How the Iowans voted

desmoinesdem — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:45:00 GMT

This week Congress approved a continuing spending resolution to fund the federal government through the end of the current fiscal year on September 30. Iowa's delegation split on this compromise, but not strictly along party lines. Details on the budget compromise and how the Iowans voted are after the jump.
The previous continuing spending resolution approved by Congress at the end of 2012 was due to expire on March 28. Erik Wasson and Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill on the continuing resolution, which authorizes $984 billion in spending through September 30.

Committee members were given latitude by House GOP leaders to work out a deal, so long as it did not reverse the $85 billion in sequestration cuts that went into effect on March 1.
Republicans and Democrats are still at loggerheads over how to replace those cuts, with the White House insisting that new tax revenue should be included and the GOP arguing that no new taxes should replace the spending cuts.
The government-funding measure, which lasts through Sept. 30, contains full, detailed appropriations bills covering the departments of Defense; Commerce; Justice; Veterans Affairs; Agriculture and Homeland Security, as well as for science agencies like NASA and military construction activities.
The rest of the federal government will operate on autopilot, and the bill does not include new funding to implement President Obama's healthcare and financial reform laws. [...]
The bill moves some money around within agency budgets to try to help them better deal with sequestration.
The original House bill ensured the Defense Department's operations budget received $11 billion more to ensure the Pentagon remains battle-ready.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and ranking member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) negotiated dozens of smaller changes to the measure, none of which were objectionable to House GOP leaders.
The full Senate also adopted some amendments shifting money around, including one by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to prevent furloughs of meat inspectors.

Click here for more details on the Senate amendments to the continuing resolution.

The U.S. Senate approved this spending bill on Wednesday afternoon by 73 votes to 26. All but one of the "no" votes came from Senate Republicans, including Iowa's Chuck Grassley. Senator Tom Harkin voted yes, along with most of his colleagues in the Democratic caucus.

In the House, both parties were split on the spending bill. It passed by a large margin of 218 votes to 109, but the roll call shows that Republicans split 203 in favor/27 opposed, while Democrats split 115 in favor/82 opposed.

Iowa's two House Republicans, Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) both supported the spending resolution, as did Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02). Meanwhile, Bruce Braley (IA-01) was one of the no votes.

I can't think of another bill that prompted Braley and Grassley to vote one way while Harkin, Latham, King, and Loebsack voted the other way.

I didn't see any statements from Harkin or Iowa's House members on the continuing resolution. UPDATE: Braley's communications director Jeff Giertz provided this comment: "Rep. Braley voted against the continuing resolution because it does nothing about the damaging across-the-board sequestration cuts and kicks the can down the road when it comes to doing the hard work of reducing our debt."

Grassley released this statement on March 20, complaining that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not allow a vote on an amendment he wanted for the continuing resolution:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Grassley Protests Senate Leader Refusing Vote on Air Guard and Reserve Amendment
WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley said the refusal of the Senate Majority Leader to allow votes on amendments such as a bipartisan proposal to freeze funding for the transfer or retirement of Air National Guard and Reserve aircraft demonstrates what he's been saying about how the way the Majority Leader is running the Senate prevents serious issues from being addressed and, in this case, to the detriment of Iowa.
The amendment had been introduced by Senator Max Baucus of Montana to the Continuing Appropriations Act to fund government operations until the end of the fiscal year.
"The Senate Majority leader used a tactic to prevent senators offering amendments without his permission," Grassley said. "When some Senators sought to offer amendments that other senators didn't want to have to vote on, he made it clear that unless those senators consented to waive their right to offer those amendments, he would move to shut down all further debate and amendments pre-maturely, which is exactly what he did. Unfortunately, all but one member of his party along with a few Republicans voted for the Majority Leader's motion. As a result, the Senate was prevented from considering the Air Guard and Reserve amendment offered by Senator Baucus. It also prevented the consideration of a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senator Moran to keep contract Air Traffic Control Towers, like the one in Dubuque, operating."
Grassley went on to say that the tactics of the Senate's Democratic leadership have reached unprecedented lengths to block the Senate from considering amendments, against more than 200 years of Senate tradition as a deliberative body.
"There is no Senate rule that says senators have a right not to have to take votes on difficult issues they would rather avoid," Grassley said. "On the contrary, that's what the American people expect us to do. While the Democratic Leader complains that Republicans don't vote for his motions to cut off debate, calling that a filibuster and a delay tactic, the truth is that this bill probably could have been finished much sooner if the Senate had been allowed to consider amendments on an ongoing basis and vote them up or down right from the start. It seemed for a while that the Majority Leadership was getting better about allowing an open process in the new 113th Congress, but it appears that this bad habit is proving hard to break."
The Baucus amendment would have blocked the movement of Air National Guard Aircraft until after the completion of studies by the Government Accountability Office examining the cost of infrastructure in connection with moving Air National Guard and Reserve aircraft, the costs of recruiting and training in connection with moving these assets, the jobs lost and gained in connection with moving these assets and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense examining the cost of infrastructure in connection with moving Air National Guard and Reserve aircraft, the costs of recruiting and training in connection with moving these assets, and the environmental impact associated with moving these assets.
"Here, the Air Force hasn't been willing to quantify the reason for its decision or dispute the fact that in a lot of areas, the Air National Guard is at least as capable as full-time personnel, and in some cases more capable, since Guard members serve over a long period of time and gain valuable experience, on top of the fact that over the long run the Guard can be much more cost effective," Grassley said. "So, cutting the Guard doesn't necessarily make sense for achieving maximum savings and it may not make sense for national security, either."

New thread on the Iowa Congressional races

desmoinesdem — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:05:00 GMT

Dubuque business owner Rod Blum told the Marshall County Republican Central Committee this week that he plans to enter the GOP primary to represent the open first Congressional district. Blum finished a close second to Ben Lange in the 2012 IA-01 primary. Cedar Rapids business owner Steve Rathje was the first Republican to announce in IA-01. I haven't heard any news lately about other possible Republican candidates in the first district, like State Representative Walt Rogers or former Secretary of State Paul Pate.

Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer predicted on Sunday that the first Iowa woman elected governor or to Congress will be a Republican. If no Democratic woman steps up in IA-01, I believe Upmeyer will be proven right. I have heard from several independent sources that State Senator Liz Mathis is privately telling Democrats she won't run for Congress. Senate President Pam Jochum took herself out of the running last month. Former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy is the only declared Democratic candidate so far. State Senator Steve Sodders is talking with potential supporters about the race.

I haven't heard about any Republican planning to run against four-term Democrat Dave Loebsack in IA-02. For now, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee does not appear worried about holding this district.

According to the Des Moines rumor mill, former State Senator Staci Appel is considering a run for Congress in IA-03. Appel lives in Warren County and served one term in the Iowa Senate before losing to Republican Kent Sorenson in 2010. Mike Sherzan is currently the only declared Democratic challenger to ten-term Republican Tom Latham.

I haven't heard of any Democrats planning to challenge six-term incumbent Steve King in IA-04. I'm still confident King will not run for the U.S. Senate. But if King does leave the fourth district open, many Republicans are rumored to be thinking about that race, including Upmeyer and State Representative Chip Baltimore.

Any comments about next year's Congressional races in Iowa are welcome in this thread. A Congressional map is after the jump, along with the latest voter registration numbers in each district and Stuart Rothenberg's comments on why he does not consider Latham or King vulnerable in 2014.

Active voter registration totals in the Congressional districts as of March 2013, according to the Iowa Secretary of State's office:

IA-01: 165,428 Democrats, 137,943 Republicans, 193,674 no-party voters

IA-02: 174,351 Democrats, 140,684 Republicans, 185,578 no-party voters

IA-03: 159,575 Democrats, 165,595 Republicans, 157,163 no-party voters

IA-04: 131,552 Democrats, 180,956 Republicans, 178,651 no-party voters

Excerpt from Stuart Rothenberg commentary in Roll Call: Is the House in Play? A District-by-District Assessment.

Republican Rep. Tom Latham of Iowa defeated another incumbent, Democrat Leonard L. Boswell, running in territory very different from the Republican's district last decade. Because of that, Latham's 8-point victory - in a district that President Barack Obama won by more than 4 points - is a sign of strength, not vulnerability.
Similarly, Republican Rep. Steve King's 8-point victory in another Iowa district over a highly touted Democrat isn't a sign of vulnerability. King beat Christie Vilsack, wife of the former governor and current secretary of Agriculture, by almost the identical margin that Mitt Romney beat Obama in the district, suggesting a polarized electorate with a clear Republican bent.

Iraq War 10th anniversary links and discussion thread

desmoinesdem — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:32:00 GMT

Ten years ago, President George W. Bush made the disastrous mistake of taking this country to war against Iraq. I've posted some links about the costs and casualties of war after the jump.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. I appreciate the work and commitment of those who tried to derail the speeding train toward invasion, and of those who protested the war after it began. I did nothing to stop the war in Iraq--just sat in a rocking chair cradling a new baby, feeling horrified while watching the news on television.
Roll call for the October 2002 U.S. House vote on the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq: 296 to 133. Four of Iowa's five representatives voted yes: Republicans Jim Nussle (IA-01), Tom Latham (IA-05), and Greg Ganske (IA-04), and Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03). Republican Jim Leach (IA-02) was one of only six House Republicans to vote no. This vote may be the reason why Leach survived a strong challenge in the redrawn IA-02 in 2002.

Roll call for the October 2002 U.S. Senate vote on the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq: 77 to 23. Both of Iowa's senators voted yes. This was not one of Tom Harkin's finer moments. He was facing a re-election challenge from Greg Ganske at the time.

None of the politicians or policy "experts" who led us into war have been held accountable.

Public schools are not teaching students much about this war.

A new study from Brown University indicates,

According to the project, there have been more than 189,000 direct war deaths. Some 134,000 civilians have been killed directly by war violence, and it is estimated that hundreds of thousands more have died from war-related hardships and illnesses.
The death toll for U.S. troops in Iraq has reached 4,488 - and 3,418 U.S. contractors working for the military have also been killed since March 2003.
[...]
And then there are the post-combat injuries and the home front repercussions of war. Almost 700,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been granted disability. It is estimated that future medical and disability costs for veterans will be between $600 billion and $1 trillion, according to the project.
Total federal spending associated with the war has reached $1.7 trillion. Future promised health and disability payments for veterans through 2053 add up to $490 billion. So, as it stands now, the Iraq War has cost $2.2 trillion, which is a far cry from the initial 2002 estimates of $50 to $60 billion. When you factor in the interest, war expenses could swell to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades.

Click here to read the full report on the costs of the war in Iraq.

Veterans Administration spending on health care and disability payments for Iraq War veterans will continue to rise for decades.

The Iraq war has cost the United States $1.7 trillion - in addition to catastrophic human, social and political losses - and that number could climb to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades, according to the Costs of War Project.
One cost that has just begun to accumulate is Iraq veterans' medical care and disability payments, which could top out in yearly spending around 2050 and total in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This is not surprising, even though there is no special fund set aside to help us meet the towering commitment. A look at previous wars shows that VA spending continues to climb for decades after a conflict is over then falls off as veterans die in old age. Payments to veterans from Vietnam and the first Gulf War have not yet peaked, according to Havard economist Linda Bilmes. World War I veteran payments were highest more than 50 years after the war ended.
Veteran spending for the post-9/11 wars may have an even longer tail because medical advances have made gruesome battlefield injuries increasingly survivable and more veterans are filing disability claims for long-term psychological problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Rising health care costs will accelerate the economic impact of expensive lifelong treatments.

Many spouses and children of Iraq War veterans suffer from PTSD, just like the soldiers in their families.

This week Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) again called for a "full accounting" of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Press release from March 18:

Braley Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Require True Accounting of Iraq, Afghanistan War Costs
Tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq
Washington, D.C. - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) has joined Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03) to introduce bipartisan legislation requiring a full accounting of the human and financial costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 19, 2013, marks the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the American ground invasion of Iraq.
Braley said, "Congress has spent $1.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, but those costs don't even begin to account for so many indirect costs and the costs of these wars yet to come: lifetime care for injured veterans, long-term mental health treatment, spousal benefits for families of those we lost, and more.
"These wars have had a tremendous impact on our federal budget and our standing in the world. American taxpayers deserve a true and full accounting of these conflicts, so we understand the financial and human toll these wars have placed on our nation."
The bipartisan True Cost of War Act requires the President to work with the secretaries of Defense, State, and Veterans Affairs to submit a written report to the public tallying the long-term human and financial costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Braley first introduced the True Cost of War Act in 2008 and has worked in subsequent sessions of Congress to pass the bill into law. In 2011, the legislation was passed by the US House in a bipartisan vote. However, the True Cost of the War Act has never advanced to the President's desk for his signature into law.
Full text of the bill can be downloaded at the following link: http://1.usa.gov/107Gz8I

David Corn remembers how "in those dreadful months before the March 19, 2003, invasion of Iraq, the cheerleaders for war inhabited a place of privilege within the media."

Today people think of MSNBC as a left-wing alternative to Fox News, but in the run-up to the Iraq War, MSNBC corporate executives pressured correspondents to cover the drive toward war "in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings."

Media Matters examines the work of "some of the [American news] media's most prominent pro-war voices."

Instead of facing consequences for backing the invasion based on information that turned out to be false and criticizing war opponents, many of these media figures continue to hold positions of influence and continue to provide foreign policy reporting and commentary.

Statement released by Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) on March 19:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement today marking the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War. Loebsack is the only member from the Iowa delegation to serve on the Armed Services Committee and has traveled to Iraq three times. During his visits, Loebsack met with troops and commanders on the ground and brought a touch of home to the troops by presenting them with care packages made by Iowa students.
"As we reflect on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War we thank the men and women who served for their bravery and selflessness. We must also remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country and honor their memory. We must pay tribute to the families of the more than one million troops who served in Iraq. Though the war has ended, we still have a great responsibility here at home. We must ensure that our servicemembers, who served with such dedication and honor, receive nothing but the best medical care and support, and that those looking for civilian jobs are able to find them."
"After ten years, 4,475 lives lost, more than 32,000 injured and more than a trillion dollars spent, there are many lessons that we as a nation must take away from the war. But none is as important as making sure our troops have the tools necessary to stay safe on the battlefield and those who have returned have access to the services they need when they come home. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military parent, I work every day to ensure our men and women who volunteer to defend our country are taken care of, whether here at home or when they are overseas."

UPDATE: On March 19, Braley published a blog post at the Huffington Post about his efforts to pass the "True Cost of War" bill. He discussed the wartime injuries that permanently changed the life of Ian Ralston, a Waterloo native and former high school classmate of Braley's daughter.

Today marks the ten year anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq. A decade later, Ian's story is all too familiar - thousands of our nation's most promising sons and daughters have been paralyzed or otherwise disabled in the line of duty. Many others continue to suffer the invisible wounds of war, in the form of Traumatic Brain Injury or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Over 4,400 American servicemembers made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives for their country in Iraq.
It's easy to place a dollar value on weapons and supplies, but more difficult to calculate the actual cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reported cost is in the range of $1.5 trillion - which is a lot of money.
Yet these "reported" costs don't even begin to account for so many of the future costs of these wars that are yet to come: lifetime care for injured veterans, long-term mental health treatment, prosthetics and maintenance, spousal benefits for families of the brave veterans who never return home, and damage to civilian populations.
In 2008, Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard University professor Linda J. Bilmes calculated the true cost of the Iraq War at $3 trillion, accounting for both government expenditures and the broader impacts of the war on the economy. Later, in 2010, they revisited their calculation and noted that it was probably too conservative.

SECOND UPDATE: Richard Norton-Taylor reported for the UK newspaper The Guardian,

A special BBC Panorama programme tonight will reveal how British and US intelligence agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries.
It describes how Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, told the CIA's station chief in Paris at the time, Bill Murray, through an intermediary that Iraq had "virtually nothing" in terms of WMD.
Sabri said in a statement that the Panorama story was "totally fabricated".
However, Panorama confirms that three months before the war an MI6 officer met Iraq's head of intelligence, Tahir Habbush al-Tikriti, who also said that Saddam had no active WMD. The meeting in the Jordanian capital, Amman, took place days before the British government published its now widely discredited Iraqi weapons dossier in September 2002.
Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary who led an inquiry into the use of intelligence in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, tells the programme that he was not told about Sabri's comments, and that he should have been.
Butler says of the use of intelligence: "There were ways in which people were misled or misled themselves at all stages."

Iowans split on party lines over bill on federal job training

desmoinesdem — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:50:00 GMT

On Friday the U.S. House approved a bill that would reorganize nearly three dozen federal job training programs into one fund providing job training money to states. Iowa's four representatives split on party lines.
H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills (SKILLS) Act, could have been a bipartisan effort. President Barack Obama said during his 2012 State of the Union address,

"I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people...have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It's time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work."

But House Democrats boycotted the committee markup of the bill earlier this month.

The bill, authored by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), would reauthorize the Clinton-era Workforce Investment Act by consolidating 35 federal job-training programs into a single block grant.
Republicans have touted the bill as following through on a proposal by President Obama in his 2012 State of the Union address, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) highlighted the measure in a high-profile speech last month as part of his "Making Life Work" agenda for the GOP.
But Democrats and advocacy groups say the GOP consolidation plan goes too far and that Republicans on the committee made no attempt to work with Democrats on what had previously been a bipartisan issue.
"We didn't come to this decision lightly," Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.), John Tierney (D-Mass.) and Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) said in a statement. "Unfortunately, we viewed boycotting this proceeding as our only alternative after many months of repeatedly requesting bipartisan negotiations and being rebuffed by committee Republicans." [...]
"The Republican bill has scant support and has garnered significant opposition," said the three Democrats, who have sponsored their own legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. "Democrats can only come to the conclusion that this bill is being advanced for political reasons, not to make the workforce investment system work better. It would have been a dereliction of duty to continue to participate."

House leaders brought the bill to the floor on March 15. Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill,

"If you need job training, the SKILLS Act eliminates bureaucratic hurdles, such as first requiring you to work on your resume and develop an individual employment plan, so that you can access the training that you need right away," Cantor said.
The bill would give states new flexibility to determine standards that job training providers must meet and lets them work with community colleges to provide training. It would also reauthorize WIA, and require that state and local workforce investment board members, which are established to help implement WIA, ensure that two-thirds of their membership is composed of employers. [...]
"Youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, English-language learners, veterans, low-income workers are amongst those who face the greatest barriers to employment," Education and the Workforce Committee ranking member George Miller (D-Calif.) said. "Yet programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the Republicans." [...]
Miller and others also argued that the bill would freeze federal spending on the Workforce Investment Fund for seven years, which some said it tantamount to a cut.
These complaints matched those of the White House, which said on Wednesday that the House bill would eliminate many programs needed by "vulnerable populations," and would freeze funding.

Democrats offered a substitute amendment that failed on a 227 to 192 vote (roll call). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) supported the amendment. The entire House Republican caucus voted no, including Representatives Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04).

The House then considered a Democratic motion to recommit the bill with instructions. That motion included a minimum wage increase of 95 cents a year for three years, reaching $10.10 in 2014. Senator Tom Harkin recently introduced a bill with the same language in the Senate. House members rejected the motion to recommit by 233 votes to 184. Again, the Iowans split on party lines. In fact, every House Republican present voted against the motion, and all but six of the bluest Blue Dog Democrats voted for it.

On final passage, the SKILLS Act passed on a mostly party-line vote of 215 votes to 202. King and Latham supported the bill, while Braley and Loebsack opposed it.

I haven't seen any public comments on this issue from Braley, Loebsack, or Latham, but King's office sent out this press release on March 15 (emphasis in original).

King Votes for SKILLS Act
Washington, DC- Congressman Steve King released the following statement after voting in favor of the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills (SKILLS) Act. The SKILLS Act streamlines the current bureaucratic maze of workforce development programs and creates a more accessible, user friendly job training program. Under the SKILLS Act, states and employers are empowered to help train a 21st century workforce, and unemployed Americans will now be able find a "one stop shop" to help get the training they need.
"In my construction business when I had a job opening, I was looking for specific expertise," said King. "Today there are 12 million Americans out of work but businesses can't find the right people to fill open positions. This gap will be narrowed by the SKILLS Act, which will successfully train and organize employers and job seekers so that both get what they need. It will put power into the hands of state and local leaders instead of wasteful programs and bureaucracy. The last thing this country needs is jobs left unfilled because resources were untapped to fill them. I knew when running my own business and I still understand today how important it is for employers to be able to find the talent to effectively run their teams, and the SKILLS Act will do just that."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee quickly sent out press releases that focused on Republicans voting against a minimum wage hike rather than for a job training bill. Here is the "Steve King" version that hit my in-box on March 15; identical text targeted Latham.

VOTE ALERT: Congressman King Just Rejected Minimum Wage Increase
Congressman Steve King just rejected a commonsense measure to increase the minimum wage.
Working families have gone without an increase in the minimum wage since 2009, and according to a Pew Research/USA Today poll last month, 71 percent of Americans favor increasing the minimum wage. The latest Census Bureau numbers show that income rose for the top fifth of American households last year while median income fell to a level that is 8 percent lower than pre-recession levels.
"In our country, it's not right when men and women work hard at a full-time job and can't earn enough to make ends meet or support their families, but Congressman King would rather chose Tea Party ideology than help hardworking families," said Emily Bittner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The people of Iowa work hard and play by the rules but they're getting squeezed by higher prices and lower earnings - and now Congressman King just said no to a commonsense way to put more money in their pockets: raise the minimum wage."
BACKGROUND
Congressman Steve King Voted Against Increasing the Minimum Wage from $7.25 to $10.10 Over Three Years. Upon enactment, the measure would have increased the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.20 within three months. A year from this date, the federal minimum wage would increase from $8.20 to $9.15. A year from this date, the federal minimum wage would increase to $10.10. (HR 803, Vote #74, 3/15/13)
Raising the Minimum Wage Would Benefit as Many as 30 Million Americans. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would raise the wages of about 30 million workers, who would receive over $51 billion in additional wages over the phase-in period." [Economic Policy Institute, 3/13/13]
· Raising the Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Generate 140,000 Net New Jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "Across the phase-in period of the minimum-wage increase, GDP would increase by roughly $32.6 billion, resulting in the creation of approximately 140,000 net new jobs (and 284,000 job years) over that period." [Economic Policy Institute, 3/13/13]
Wealthiest Get Richer While Middle Class Income Shrinks, according to Census Bureau. "Income for the top fifth of American households rose by 1.6 percent last year...All households in the middle of the scale saw declines...The numbers helped drive an overall decline in income for the typical American family. Median household income after inflation fell to $50,054, a level that was 8 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the recession took hold." [New York Times, 9/12/12]

As usual, the DCCC won't hold the six House Democrats who voted against this minimum wage increase accountable. On the contrary, those Democrats will benefit from six-figure independent expenditures by the DCCC, because they're on the committee's "Frontline" list of vulnerable incumbents. This kind of farce is one reason I haven't donated to the DCCC in a long time.

Iowans split over U.S. House bill on welfare work requirements

desmoinesdem — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:50:00 GMT

Yesterday the U.S. House approved a bill seeking to prevent the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from allowing states to lift work requirements for federal welfare benefits. Republican arguments for the bill echoed false claims from Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
The Hill's Pete Kasperowicz explained the concept behind H.R. 890, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act.

The bill is a reaction to last year's guidance from the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), which told states that the so-called welfare-work requirement can be waived.
Republicans criticized the waiver as an attempt to gut what they said was one of the most important pieces of the 1996 welfare reform law. That law turned the federal welfare program into a block grant to states under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
It also required that within each state, 50 percent of all families receiving help under TANF must be working or looking for work - states can be fined if they fail to hit that target. [...]
Democrats defended the Obama administration's policy by noting that HHS has said it would only let states waive the welfare-work rule if they can come up with a plan to boost the number of people moving from welfare to work by 20 percent.
"The President is not dropping welfare-work requirements, he's allowing the states to experiment, and you'd think our Republican friends would be entirely in favor of letting governors experiment in getting people back to work fairly quickly," Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said.

Remember this vote next time Republicans in Congress claim that the Obama administration is trampling on "states rights."

House members approved this bill yesterday on a mostly party-line vote of 246 to 181. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supported the bill, as did all but three of their GOP colleagues. Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed it, as did all but 18 House Democrats.

Next year, I would not be surprised to see Loebsack's Republican challenger in IA-02 and Braley's opponent in the U.S. Senate race distort the meaning of this vote, the same way Romney's presidential campaign wrongly asserted that President Barack Obama had gutted welfare reform. Republicans continued to make that claim even after multiple fact-checkers debunked it.

The real scandal is that the federal welfare program known as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) was only a "weak safety net" during the worst U.S. recession in 60 years. According to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

Nationally, the TANF caseload rose only modestly during the downturn and began to decline while need remained high. The caseload did not begin to grow until seven months after the recession started, and it rose only 16 percent before peaking in December 2010 (see chart). In contrast, the number of unemployed individuals rose 88 percent over this period. Over the course of 2011, the caseload fell 5 percentage points from that peak, while the unemployment rate remained at or above 8.5 percent throughout the year.

Naturally, Republicans won't let reality get in the way of their claims that federal welfare benefits are too generous toward lazy people who don't want to work.

To my knowledge, only one of the Iowans in Congress has publicly commented on yesterday's vote. Steve King's office sent out this press release (emphasis in original):

King Votes for Welfare to Work Requirements
Washington, DC- Congressman Steve King released the following statement after voting for H.R. 890, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act, today. The bill prohibits the Obama administration from waiving the essential and original work requirements and extends the TANF block grant program, which gives benefits to low-income families with children.
"Americans understand that welfare work requirements were a positive bipartisan addition in 1996 to the welfare reform law signed by President Clinton," said King. "Today I voted to prevent the Obama Administration from removing these accountability measures and to preserve these programs that do so much good for many families. The Obama Administration continually puts dependency on the government dime above what is best for individuals and our nation. Being held responsible for government assistance should not be a partisan issue."

Iowa reaction to Paul Ryan's new budget

desmoinesdem — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:45:00 GMT

U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan presented his new federal budget blueprint today. As before, he would end Medicare as a single-payer system for all Americans under age 55, slash spending on programs for the poor such as food stamps and Medicaid, and cut taxes for some, though the details there are fuzzy. He would not cut the defense budget or Social Security. Ryan says his budget would be balanced in 10 years, but he relies on some assumptions that won't happen, such as repeal of the 2010 health care reform law.

I've enclosed Iowa political reaction to the Ryan budget below and will update this post as needed.
Governor Terry Branstad's statement tries to resurrect the myth that he inherited a fiscal mess, but in fact Iowa's state budget was in surplus before he was elected in 2010.

Branstad and Reynolds commend Paul Ryan for offering a balanced, sustainable budget
March 12, 2013
Gov. Terry E. Branstad and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds today commended Congressman Paul Ryan for offering a budget that will balance and is sustainable.
"I applaud Paul Ryan for making the tough decisions to balance the federal budget, and return predictability and stability to the federal government," said Branstad. "It should not be too much to ask to have a balanced budget, let alone one that will balance in 10 years. If left unchecked, Washington will continue its path to financial ruin. Paul Ryan is offering a thoughtful budget and continues to show leadership. It is not fair to continue to pile up debt on future generations.
"In Iowa, we faced a significant budget shortfall, and we turned it around by restoring proper budget practices. We worked in a bipartisan manner to balance our budget, and it is time for Washington to do the same.
"America cannot spend our way out of this problem, and we instead must grow our economy. Paul Ryan's plan provides a solid foundation to grow our economy."
Reynolds noted the stability this will bring for job creators.
"Job creators in this country have faced too many fiscal cliffs, sequesters, and too much uncertainty at the national level," said Reynolds. "While the U.S. Senate has not passed a budget in four years, the Federal government has continued to pile up trillion dollar deficits. This lack of fiscal discipline and an inability to set clear priorities is not acceptable. The system is broken, and Paul Ryan's budget is a badly-needed fix that avoids placing a growing debt burden on our children and grandchildren. I am proud of Paul Ryan's courage and leadership, and I hope the U.S. Senate leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion to craft a balanced budget.
"The Ryan plan will replace the rigid, one-size-fits-all federal programs and instead offers states the flexibility to make these programs work for the people they serve."

The Iowa Democratic Party released this statement in response.

DES MOINES - Iowa Democratic Party Chair Tyler Olson issued the following statement in response to Governor Terry Branstad's endorsement of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget.
"Governor Branstad's endorsement of the Paul Ryan Budget once again shows why we need new leadership in the Governor's Office.
"The Ryan Budget is simply more of the same failed policies the American people rejected during the last presidential election. Paul Ryan wants to protect tax breaks for Wall Street while cutting services for those on Main Street. He continues to try to end Medicare as we know it and double seniors' out-of-pocket expenses. And he proposes the same kind of austerity measures we know will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and stop our economic recovery.
"It is not surprising that Terry Branstad, who was known for keeping two sets of books during his first stint as Governor, would embrace a budget that uses as much funny math as this one does. After railing against the President's $716 billion in Medicare savings, Paul Ryan puts it in his budget. He takes into account the repeal of Obamacare which will not happen. And he doesn't list a single tax loophole that he would close.
"This is a bad budget that Iowans and Americans rejected last November and Governor Branstad should be ashamed for supporting something that would hurt seniors, the middle class and our economy."

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) voted against Ryan's previous budget and campaigned for re-election last year against Republican proposals on Medicare. His office released this statement today:

"The budget proposal released today unfortunately is more of the same from House Republicans. Instead of offering a commonsense blueprint to get Iowans back to work and the economy back on track, they once again pledge to balance the budget on the back of seniors, the middle class and the most vulnerable.
"We've got to grow the economy, create jobs and substantially reduce the unsustainable deficit over the long-term, but it must be done in a balanced way. It is time to hit the restart button. We can't afford to end the promise of Medicare and give tax breaks to the wealthy. Seniors and working families are not the ones who got us into this fiscal mess and it is unfair that they get punished for Washington's reckless behavior.
"I am hopeful Congress can sit down in a bipartisan manner and work out a balanced, commonsense budget that sets our country on a fiscally responsible path while growing the middle class."

Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-03) voted for Ryan's previous budget but was non-committal in this press release today:

LATHAM: "I CAN ONLY SUPPORT A BUDGET THAT OFFERS A SERIOUS PLAN TO REIN IN SPENDING & BALANCE THE BUDGET"
Washington, Mar 12 - Iowa Congressman Tom Latham released the following statement after the Tuesday morning release of U.S. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's proposed budget: "The Path to Prosperity: A Responsible, Balanced Budget".
"Responsible American families that work hard and sacrifice to live within their means are owed the same principled fiscal restraint by their elected leaders at every level of government. As I take the time to review Chairman Ryan's budget proposal I will weigh my support or opposition to this and all other proposed budgets with the strict measurement of whether it is a serious plan to rein in Washington's spending problem and balance the federal budget.
"A plan that produces a balanced budget, cuts wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, fixes our broken tax code to create jobs and increase workers' wages, protects and strengthens the important promises of retirement programs and national security, and repairs the safety net to expand opportunity to every American will receive my support.
"I remain committed to working with any member of Congress, regardless of political party, who shares my principles of fiscal restraint to find real solutions that move our country in the right direction rather than burying her people underneath more senseless politics, partisanship and pandering."

I am seeking comment from Latham's office to find out whether a budget that claims to be balanced in ten years meets his criteria. So far I haven't heard back, which is not surprising, because Latham's current press secretary has yet to return a single phone call or e-mail from me. (Oooh, scary liberal blogger!)

Latham's only declared Democratic challenger in IA-03, Mike Sherzan, sent out this comment:

Statement from Mike Sherzan on Congressman Paul Ryan's Latest Medicare Attack
Iowa Small Business owner Mike Sherzan commented on Paul Ryan's latest budget today:
"Congressman Latham has shown his disregard for our seniors time and again -- already voting twice in lockstep with Congressman Ryan and the Washington leadership to end the Medicare guarantee as we know it -- just to pay for new tax giveaways for the special interests," said Sherzan. "We've got to get back on the road to a balanced budget, but we've got to do it the right way, not on the backs of seniors and the middle class -- instead of recycling the same bad proposals, Congressman Latham should start trying to actually get things done."

Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) did not send out a press release on the Ryan proposal but criticized the plan during an appearance on Iowa Public Radio's "River to River" program. Here's my partial transcript, starting around the 11:30 mark of that recording.

Well, I don't think Congressman Ryan mentioned at all that the reason why he was able to, in his plan, attempt to balance the budget in a much more rapid time frame, is because of the tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that we all agreed to at the end of the year [2012]. That was completely missing from the debate on how we get the deficit under control leading up to the last election. So I'm encouraged by the fact that the House Budget chairman apparently now recognizes that that important part of the puzzle is going to help us get this problem under control.
But the problem is that he serves on the Ways and Means Committee--that's the principal tax-writing committee that deals with all of the entitlement programs you've just mentioned, Ben. And I would ask Congressman Ryan and everyone else who keeps talking about entitlement reform, why their Ways and Means Committee didn't put forward a single bill and send it to the House floor that dealt with meaningful entitlement reform. The fact that they have failed to do that, and he serves on that committee, shows you that a lot of this is more about political posturing than getting to the heart of the problem.
The biggest problem we face with entitlement reform is, we have runaway health care spending in this country, and until we are serious about how we can provide incentives to people to avoid the need for the incredible amounts we spend on health care in this country, through behavioral economics, we're just moving pieces around and never getting to the root cause of the problem.
I can tell you that I think the American people resoundingly rejected his proposal to privatize Medicare, and that's also included in this plan, the way it was two years ago. So here we are back with the same old failed proposal.

I have not yet seen any statement from Representative Steve King (R, IA-04), who also voted for the previous Ryan budget.

Loebsack votes with House Republicans on government funding resolution

desmoinesdem — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:20:00 GMT

Yesterday the U.S. House approved a bill to fund the federal government through the remainder of the current fiscal year. Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was one of 53 House Democrats to vote for the spending bill, along with most of the Republican caucus. Follow me after the jump for details and the latest sleight of hand by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The last continuing spending resolution approved by Congress expires on March 27. Without further action to fund the government, a partial government shutdown could begin by the end of this month.

Earlier this week, some Congress-watchers speculated that House Republican leaders might not have the votes to pass their government funding bill. In fact, the House almost failed to pass a rule governing debate on this bill yesterday, Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill:

Members approved the rule for the bill, H.R. 933, in a 212-197 vote, which is relatively close for a rule vote. Only two Democrats supported the rule, and 16 Republicans voted against it. Seventeen Democrats did not vote - more than the 15-vote margin that allowed the rule to pass.
The vote came after a debate in which Democrats blasted the bill for locking in the $85 billion sequester that took effect on Friday. The bill sets spending levels for all agencies for the rest of 2013, and says these levels are subject to the sequester, which will create a total discretionary spending level of about $984 billion.
The bill also gives the Defense Department flexibility to deal with the sequester, by shifting $10 billion to DOD's operations and maintenance budget. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said he reads that as a sign that Republicans will allow the sequester to take full effect over the next six months.
"The Department of Defense and the VA are given some flexibility to deal with the devastating sequestration cuts, but no other agency is given that tool," McGovern said. "This is clearly, in my opinion, a tacit statement by the majority that they are going to keep this harmful sequester, one of the stupidest things ever to come out of Congress."

Iowa's four U.S. House representatives split on party lines over the rule governing debate on the spending bill: Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) voted for the rule, while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Loebsack voted against it.

The GOP's continuing resolution finances the federal government through the end of the 2013 fiscal year on September 30. It also "sets funding for all agencies at levels consistent with the 2011 Budget Control Act, and with the sequester," which went into effect on March 1. House Democrats offered a motion to recommit with instructions, which would have stripped the sequester cuts out of the continuing resolution. That motion failed on a party-line vote. As expected, Braley and Loebsack supported the motion to recommit, while Latham and King voted against it.

On final passage, 53 House Democrats voted for the continuing spending resolution, presumably calculating that the risk of a government shutdown outweighed the harm done by approving a budget with the "sequester" cuts. The roll call was 267 to 151. Latham and King voted for the bill, as did all but 14 House Republicans present. Loebsack voted for the bill as well. Braley was one of the 137 House Democrats to vote agains the spending resolution.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee quickly sent out press releases blasting House Republicans who "just voted in favor of sequester." I received versions targeting both Latham and King, and I enclose the Latham version below. But didn't 53 House Democrats also just vote for the continuing resolution, which would lock in the sequester cuts? Yes, they did--but the DCCC's press release focuses on the party-line vote over the motion to recommit. House Democrats almost unanimously supported that motion, while Republicans voted "against stripping a measure out of the Continuing Resolution that explicitly calls for keeping the indiscriminate cuts of the sequester." That convoluted wording is designed to let Loebsack and dozens of other House Democrats off the hook.

Share any relevant comments in this thread.

VOTE ALERT: Congressman Latham Just Voted In Favor of Sequester
Congressman Tom Latham just voted in favor of the sequester - a series of devastating and arbitrary budget cuts that will eliminate 750,000 jobs, force furloughs and throw a wet blanket on the economy. Instead of the sequester, House Democrats have tried to end taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil companies and tax breaks for millionaires, but Congressman Latham said no.
"The sequester is here and Congressman Tom Latham is one of the few people in the country who thinks it should stay," said Emily Bittner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Americans are already seeing job losses, military cutbacks and longer airport lines, but Congressman Latham would rather protect tax breaks for the well-connected than stop the damage to our middle class. The people of Iowa want a balanced solution - but Congressman Latham and his Tea Party extremists said no. There's now no doubt or debate: Congressman Latham voted in favor of the sequester and was unwilling to stop the worst effects of these disastrous cuts on the people of Iowa because tax breaks for Big Oil companies and millionaires are more important to him."
Before today, Democrats have offered multiple times balanced alternatives that would replace the arbitrary sequester approach with a thoughtful and balanced budget plan that cuts spending and eliminates tax breaks for the well-connected in a way that is not harmful to the economy. Each time, House Republicans refused to vote on these plans.
News outlets across the nation have covered the sequester's impact, and below is a sampling of headlines about the impact:
· General: With cuts, Marine Corps will 'cut into bone' [USA Today, 3/4/13]
· Sequester already causing long lines at airports, Napolitano says [CBS News, 3/4/13]
· Former NIH director: The sequester will set back medical science for a generation [Washington Post, 2/21/13]
· College aid cuts will send parents and students scrounging [Reuters, 3/4/13]
BACKGROUND
Congressman Latham voted against stripping a measure out of the Continuing Resolution that explicitly calls for keeping the indiscriminate cuts of the sequester. [HR 933, Vote #61, 3/06/13]
According to Roll Call newspaper, the Continuing Resolution "Keeps Sequester Cuts in Place" [Roll Call, 3/4/13]
According to the New York Times, "Boehner halts Talks on Cuts, and House G.O.P. Cheers" [New York Times, 3/1/13]
A February 21st USA Today/Pew poll found 76 percent of Americans favor the a balanced approach for addressing the budget deficit while only 19 percent of Americans agree with the approach of Congressional Republicans, to address the deficit through spending cuts alone. [USA Today, 2/21/13]
House Republicans Previously Voted Three Times to Deny Consideration of Replacing the Entire Sequester with a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction.
· The measure was rejected 229-196. [H Res 83, Vote #51, 2/27/13]
· The measure was rejected 229-194. [H Res 66, Vote #41, 2/14/13]
· The measure was rejected 229-188. [H Res 48, Vote #33, 2/5/13]

House approves Violence Against Women Act: How the Iowans voted

desmoinesdem — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:20:00 GMT

Chalk up another blow to the "Hastert rule". Today the U.S. House approved the Senate's version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, even though a majority of House Republicans opposed the bill. All 199 Democrats present were part of the 286 to 138 majority supporting the bill, including Iowans Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02). Unburdened by the prospect of a competitive GOP primary for U.S. Senate, Tom Latham (IA-03) was among 87 House Republicans who also voted for the bill. Steve King (IA-04) was one of 138 Republicans to oppose it.

The Violence Against Women Act's previous reauthorization expired at the end of September 2011, but last year the House and Senate failed to reconcile the bills passed in each chamber. (Iowa's representatives split on party lines over the House version of the Violence Against Women Act.) The contentious issues centered on protections for LGBT victims of violence, undocumented immigrants, and a provision granting tribal courts "full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country." House Republican leaders capitulated on those issues by allowing the Senate's bill to pass today.

Loebsack's official comment on today's vote is after the jump. I'll update this post with more political reaction as needed.

UPDATE: Added comments from Braley and King below. Note the priceless double-speak from King: he emphasizes voting for the Violence Against Women Act, not clarifying that he voted for the Republican effort to substitute the House version of the bill, which failed. His press release does not acknowledge that on final passage, King voted against the bill President Barack Obama's going to sign. How many Iowa media will report that King voted for the reauthorization, without realizing that he only voted for the House version? Request to Bleeding Heartland readers who live in IA-04: please let me know if you hear a news story that wrongly implies King voted for the Violence Against Women Act.
Statement from Representative Dave Loebsack, February 28:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement today after the House of Representatives passed S. 47, The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). After a long delay, the House has finally allowed a vote on the Senate legislation which passed last year and again this year with the support every female Republican Senator and which has the support of over 1,300 domestic violence, sexual assault, and law enforcement groups. Loebsack is a cosponsor of the bipartisan, comprehensive bill.
"I am very pleased that House leaders finally heard the public's call from women and men across the country, along with over a thousand organizations and groups and allowed a vote on the bipartisan, comprehensive Violence Against Women Act. I was proud to stand with my colleagues and cosponsor this important legislation. It was unconscionable that politics held up the reauthorization for as long as it has, it is long overdue. Today is an important day for women and families in Iowa and across the nation."

Statement from Representative Bruce Braley, February 28 (emphasis in original):

Braley Applauds House Passage of Violence Against Women Act Renewal
Bill renews critical domestic violence protections; expands protections for Native American women
Washington, DC - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today applauded the US House's passage of a broadly bipartisan bill that would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for five more years. Braley signed on last year as the first male cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, and he voted in favor of the bill that passed today.
Today's legislation also strengthens domestic violence protections for Native Americans by expanding the authority of tribes to protect women on their reservations and hold criminal perpetrators accountable.
"Renewing the Violence Against Women Act will help break the cycle of violence against women, and provide victims the care they need," Braley said. "Unfortunately, this type of violence is far too common and transcends politics, race, and religion.
"I'm especially happy about bipartisan improvements to the bill to expand protections of Native American women. Leaders like Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma have put partisanship aside to pass a bill that respects the sovereignty of tribal governments, and protects Native American women. For too long, domestic abusers on tribal lands have taken advantage of legal loopholes to evade accountability for their criminal actions. This bill closes those loopholes and strengthens the law.
"I urge the President to sign the Violence Against Women Act renewal into law as quickly as possible."
First signed into law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act enhanced the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes perpetrated against women and significantly strengthened penalties for offenders convicted of violent crimes against women. The law also required the federal prosecution of interstate domestic violence and sexual assault crimes, and guaranteed the interstate enforcement of protection orders. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50% since the law was originally enacted.
The Violence Against Women Act expired at the end of 2012; without Congressional action today, its important protections would have continued to lapse.
The legislation has already been approved by the Senate and heads to the President's desk for his signature.

Braley's district includes Iowa's largest Indian reservation in Tama County.

Statement from Representative Steve King, February 28 (emphasis in original):

King Votes in Support of Violence Against Women Act
Washington, DC- Congressman Steve King released the following statement today after voting in support of the House version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization of 2013 on the House floor. VAWA channels federal funding to programs that aid in helping women who are victims of domestic abuse, stalking, and sexual assault.
"Although I am concerned that this bill was brought to the floor in a manner that undermined work done by the Judiciary Committee, I understand the importance of reauthorizing VAWA to ensure its resources are available to help fight domestic abuse and sexual assault," said King. "I supported this legislation because I know how important it is to empower women in difficult situations. If a woman is at risk, she should know that she has a place to turn for support and assistance. I supported VAWA in 2005, 2012, and today I voted in support of the House version to see that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it the most."