I only watched a small part of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings today. I lost patience after 10 or 15 minutes of Senator Orrin Hatch asking the same questions over and over, even though she’d answered them the first time.

David Waldman liveblogged the hearings for Congress Matters. Click here for the morning session and here for the afternoon session. Waldman provided a bonus post with video of one low point: “Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, complete with his best Foghorn Leghorn stammer, reaches astonishing new levels of asshattery.”

Talking Points Memo compared Senator Lindsey Graham’s aggressive questioning today with his “obsequious” use of his time for questioning Judge Sam Alito. In 2006,

[Graham] took his allotted time as an opportunity to apologize to Mrs. Alito, who was upset by what was perceived to be overly tough questioning of her husband […].

Click here for video clips of Graham.

I read that Senator Chuck Grassley got a laugh out of the room in a strange way. An anti-abortion heckler disrupted the hearings during Grassley’s questioning time. After the man had been escorted from the room, Grassley said, “People always say I have the ability to turn people on.” It reminded me of Grassley’s somewhat off-color remark to Senator Kent Conrad during a Budget Committee meeting in March.

This thread is for any comments about Tuesday’s hearings or Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation in general.

UPDATE: Hilarious diary by Daily Kos user Upper West on “Sotomayor’s Woody Allen/Marshall McLuhan Moment.”

Health Care for America Now, in conjunction with the Iowa Citizen Action Network, is running an online ad that links to a “job application” citizens can fill out to request a position with Senator Chuck Grassley’s office.

You may recall that Grassley told a constituent at a recent town-hall meeting to “go work for the federal government” if he wanted the same health insurance plan the senator enjoys:

Excerpt from an ICAN press release, which I have posted in full after the jump:

Senator Grassley, whose health care bills are picked up by taxpayers, pays $356.59 a month for health insurance.  The most he pays when visiting a doctor or hospital is $300. His “Let Them Eat Cake” attitude ignores the plight of working families, farmers, and small business owners in Iowa who don’t have adequate, affordable health care and are going broke trying to keep up with insurance premiums and medical costs.

“Polls show that the majority of Iowans, like the majority of people in America, want health care reform that achieves quality, affordable health care for all,” said Betty Ahrens, Executive Director, Iowa Citizen Action Network. “Senator Grassley keeps blocking progress in the Senate Finance Committee. He talks about bipartisanship but is showing no intention of compromise, and after his comments in Waukon, we know just how out of touch Senator Grassley is with the real struggles of his constituents in Iowa. Everyone here should see this video, and we will do what we can to make sure Senator Grassley knows his “Get a Job Like Mine” solution to the health care crisis is unacceptable.”

Excerpt from the “job application”:

I work hard, and I pay my taxes, but I cannot keep up with health care costs that are rising four times faster than wages if I can even get health care at all, what with all the denials of needed care that my insurance company throws in my way. Meanwhile, Members of Congress get health care that’s affordable, and nobody is going to deny care to an elected official!

Senator Grassley has so graciously offered to provide me health care as good as he has if I work for the federal government, and so I am applying for a position in Senator Grassley’s office in the hope he will make good on that promise. If he cannot, the only hope I have to obtain quality, affordable health care for me and my family is if Senator Grassley drops his opposition and supports real health care reform – reform that gives me a choice of public or private insurance, make care affordable, and delivers good benefits.

Volunteers will deliver the “job applications” to Grassley’s office next week. Although he’s not going to change his mind about a public health insurance option, we can show how out of touch he is with Iowans.

Fortunately, a group of Senate Democrats are strongly committed to the public option, dimming prospects for a bipartisan compromise on health care that would please Grassley.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey has been saying for months that he was leaning toward running for re-election rather than for governor in 2010. On Saturday he made it official.

I announced to the crowd at Bill’s BBQ Bash that I will run for re-election as Iowa Secy of Ag in 2010.

I’ve long felt that Northey would be a long-shot for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, having gone on record supporting a gas tax increase. Even if Northey won the GOP nomination, I think that with no base of support in eastern Iowa population centers, he would have been quite an underdog against Governor Chet Culver.

I’m curious to see whether Northey continues to employ the high-profile campaign staffers he hired in May, or whether they will jump to a different Republican gubernatorial contender.

Northey will be heavily favored against Francis Thicke, the most likely Democratic candidate for secretary of agriculture. Thicke is highly qualified and articulate, however, and has the potential to energize parts of the Democratic base who are dissatisfied with Culver and our statehouse leaders.

Now that Northey has ruled out running for governor, he will be able to focus more on his current job. I wonder whether anything will come of his working group on farmland protection. Northey announced plans to create it last August during his keynote address to the annual meeting of 1000 Friends of Iowa. However, the working group has only met once, in December 2008.

Iowa has been losing prime farmland at an alarming rate in the last few decades. Northey could do a real service for our country’s food security if he would identify and advocate for some farmland protection strategies that have been successful in other states.

UPDATE: Northey is searching for ways to save money at the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, which was allocated about 15 percent less in the 2010 budget than in the fiscal year that just ended.

I recently discussed how Iowa is fully utilizing federal stimulus funds to expand unemployment benefits, unlike many other states, which are leaving all or part of that money on the table.

The Iowa Senate highlighted steps taken during the 2009 session to extend unemployment benefits, which went into effect on July 1:

· Improving and expanding services for unemployed Iowa workers. By making reforms to Iowa’s unemployment insurance program, our state will receive $70.8 million from the federal government to extend benefits for unemployed workers in training programs. It makes sense to support Iowans who are trying to upgrade their skills by attending community college and other types of training.

· Paying unemployment claims for replacement workers who become unemployed when Iowa National Guard and Reserve members return to their local jobs after active duty. When our soldiers come home, the state should help the replacement workers without penalizing employers.

· Providing $18.9 million to workforce field offices across Iowa. Iowa has 55 workforce centers, which provide job counseling, training, placement and other assistance. These services help laid off workers move forward and help local businesses find the employees they need.

For more details, read the full text of Senate File 197 here.

Note: the $70.8 million in federal funding for expanded unemployment benefits came from the economic stimulus bill, or American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. All House Republicans, including Iowa’s Tom Latham and Steve King, voted against that bill, as did almost all Senate Republicans, including Chuck Grassley.  

UPDATE: Sotomayor discussed her judicial philosophy in her opening statement to the committee. Talking Points Memo posted excerpts from all the senators’ opening statements.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings today, and Radio Iowa has Senator Chuck Grassley’s opening statement. He gave quite the lecture about “judicial restraint” as opposed to “President Obama’s ’empathy’ standard.”

An excerpt is after the jump, along with some analysis of Grassley’s selective concern about empathy and so-called activist judges.

The Des Moines Register’s Clark Kauffman reported Monday on some outside-the-box thinking by an assisted living center in Dubuque that has been fined repeatedly for providing inadequate care. I wouldn’t be happy if one of my loved ones were among the center’s 116 residents.

More details are after the jump.

In May a chorus of Republicans inside and outside Congress made hay out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the Central Intelligence Agency had not revealed its waterboarding policy during a 2002 briefing. Many demanded an investigation into the allegations. Minority leader John Boehner said of Pelosi,

“She made this claim and it’s her responsibility to either put forward evidence that they did in fact lie to her, which would be a crime, or she needs to retract her statements and apologize.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the Republican talking heads who demanded Pelosi’s resignation. According to Gingrich’s, Pelosi’s assertion was “stunning” and “dishonest.”

Representative Steve “10 Worst” King (IA-05) accused Pelosi of “actively undermining our national security” and called for suspending the speaker’s security clearance:

Speaker Pelosi has accused the CIA of committing a federal crime – lying to Congress. The CIA and other American defense and intelligence agencies cannot trust Nancy Pelosi with our national secrets, let alone our national security, until this matter is resolved. If true, there has been a serious violation of federal law. If false, American national security requires a new Speaker of the House. The severity of Speaker Pelosi’s accusations leaves no middle ground, and her security clearance should be suspended pending investigation.

Now we have learned that

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday. […]

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

So not only was Congress misled, CIA staff did not even inform Panetta about the program until four months after he was sworn in. Charles Lemos is absolutely right that it’s time for a special prosecutor to investigate this matter.

Republicans who trashed Pelosi in May and June owe her an apology, but like Rude Pundit, I’m not holding my breath. They’ve always been easygoing about Bush administration law-breaking while throwing fits about Democrats who criticized it.

The Des Moines Register published a fascinating story on Saturday about a Mount Vernon grocer’s lawsuit against the industry’s top two wholesalers, SuperValu Inc. and C&S Wholesale Grocers. Gary’s Foods filed suit eight months ago and was joined by a Maine grocer in January. What’s at issue:

The class-action lawsuit seeks monetary damages equal to triple what grocers in the Midwest and New England allegedly have overpaid for food due to the lack of competition since September 2003. […]

Court papers describe C&S and SuperValu as the nation’s top two grocery wholesalers by dollar volume, with combined 2008 revenues in excess of $28 billion. Documents say the companies strongly competed against each other in New England for much of the late 1990s, but things changed dramatically after C&S purchased the assets of a bankrupt Midwestern wholesaler in 2003.

“Faced with the prospect of competing against C&S in the Midwest, SuperValu had one of two options: Either vigorously compete, which would have substantially reduced prices to retailers, or conspire with C&S to eliminate competition between the wholesalers,” court papers say.

C&S ultimately sold its new Midwestern assets to SuperValu in September 2003 as part of a deal that also had C&S purchase all of SuperValu’s distribution facilities in New England. But court papers allege that there was a separate, “secret noncompete agreement” signed at the same time – a deal that was not publicly disclosed and unknown to the plaintiffs until “a former SuperValu executive” disclosed its existence to them in late 2008.

The wholesalers are trying to have the lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds. According to the Des Moines Register, a hearing is expected next month in a Minnesota court.

If these allegations are true, millions of consumers probably have been paying too much for food for nearly six years.

I see a Chet Culver campaign ad in our future after reading this Radio Iowa story. The non-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office examined how 16 states are using stimulus funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act:

“We found that Iowa has a foundation of safeguards to help ensure the funds are being spent in the way that they were intended and to minimize the fraud, waste and abuse,” [GAO Iowa division head Lisa] Shames said. The G.A.O. report also praises Iowa for setting up an Accountability and Transparency Board.

“We found that there were many good features in place and that bodes well in terms of the Recovery Act dollars and to ensure that they’re going to create the jobs and retain the jobs that the law intended,” Shames said.

Click here for the summary of the G.A.O’s report on Iowa. From that page you can download the full report (a 40-page pdf file). Reports on other states are available here.

Did I mention that unlike many states, Iowa is fully utilizing stimulus funds intended to help unemployed people?

And that compared to many states, Iowa has wisely invested its stimulus funds for transportation?

We’ll be hearing more about this next year in response to Republicans attacks against Governor Culver. No doubt ragbrai08 is right, and some version of this Tom Vilsack re-election message from 2002 will return to Iowa airwaves in 2010:

My opponent suggests in negative ad after ad that a bunch of problems that have struck virtually every state in the nation are somehow unique to Iowa. That’s his whole campaign. The truth is that in Iowa, we’ve met that challenge better than most.

Though unemployment remains a significant problem in Iowa, our unemployment rate is well below the national average during this recession. Our state officials are doing a good job allocating federal funds intended to save and create jobs, and the I-JOBS program will save and create additional jobs.

Don’t expect Iowa Republicans to pay attention to the G.A.O.’s findings. They never got the point of the stimulus anyway.

Governor Chet Culver hired John Frew as chief of staff yesterday to replace Charlie Krogmeier, whom Culver appointed head of the Department of Human Services in May. Frew goes way back in Iowa politics, having worked for Senator John Culver (the governor’s father) and managed Tom Harkin’s first Senate campaign in 1984. Frew will begin as chief of staff in late September. Until then, Culver has named his general counsel Jim Larew as acting chief of staff. After the jump I’ve posted a news release from the governor’s office with more background on Frew and Larew.

Also on Thursday, the Culver/Judge re-election campaign announced that

A long-time and respected political strategist is returning to Iowa to help Governor Chet Culver’s campaign committee prepare for 2010. Teresa Vilmain will serve as a senior advisor to the Chet Culver Committee.

“Teresa Vilmain is not only synonymous with well-run, well-organized political campaigns around the nation, but she knows and loves Iowa,” said Governor Culver. “As we start to look ahead to 2010, Teresa will play a leading role in helping us prepare our effort to reach out to Iowans about the important issues we are working on in our state.”

I’ve posted the full text of that news release, containing more background on Vilmain, after the jump. Some highlights: she was deputy manager of Harkin’s 1984 campaign and general consultant to both of Tom Vilsack’s winning gubernatorial campaigns. Vilsack had to come from behind to beat Jim Ross Lightfoot in 1998 and faced re-election in 2002, which was a challenging national environment for Democrats.

First Lady Mari Culver was in Mason City on Thursday

to talk about state grant funding for shelters for domestic abuse, emergencies and the homeless and the need to apply for it soon.

Available through the $10 million Public Service Shelter Grant Program, a part of the Iowa Jobs Program (IJobs), the funding is for construction, expansion or upgrades. […]

Funding can be used for deferred maintenance issues, additional security measures and expansion, said Culver […]

I recommend reading the whole article in the Mason City Globe-Gazette for more on the pressing needs of Iowa’s crisis shelters. Click here to listen to the first lady’s comments about this program in an interview with KGLO radio. Applications for this portion of the I-JOBS money are due next Wednesday, July 15. Click the link for the Iowa Finance Authority’s contact information. Republicans can criticize the I-JOBS borrowing all they want, but this is another example of how I-JOBS will improve services that Iowans need.

Finally, I want to call your attention to a new poll that The Iowa Republican blog has been highlighting this week. I will have more to say about the poll in a future post, but for now, here are some important facts:

This statewide poll conducted by Voter/Consumer Research found that 53 percent of Iowans approve of the job Culver is doing as governor, while 41 percent disapprove. Furthermore, 48 percent of respondents had a favorable impression of Culver, while 41 percent had an unfavorable impression.

Of course, The Iowa Republican blog is putting a Republican spin on these results. Criag Robinson headlined one post “53 percent of Iowans want a new governor,” based on a question suggesting that 36 percent said Culver deserves re-election, while 53 percent said it’s time to give someone else the chance. He also touted the findings on some issue-based questions that had ridiculously biased wording.

The bottom line is this: in a Republican-commissioned poll, Culver has a 53 percent approval rating and a 48 percent favorability rating. Also, the statewide survey sample contains “35% Republicans, 37% Democrats, 25% Independent or declined to state, and 2% other/don’t know.” I’m looking into how that compares with the proportion of Democrats and Republicans who have cast ballots in recent Iowa general elections.

I’ll write more about this poll when The Iowa Republican releases more of the findings.

LATE UPDATE: Forgot to mention this story:

Gov. Chet Culver on Thursday directed state revenue officials to delay any enforcement against taxpayers who claimed disaster-related credits on their state tax returns that later were not validated by Iowa lawmakers.[…]

The federal changes approved for 2008 offered income-tax deductions, exemptions and other advantages for such items as disaster-related expenses, business equipment depreciation, education-related expenses, tuition and fees and certain sales tax charges. The state, however, did not retroactively adopt those deductions as part of the state tax code.

On Wednesday, Culver asked the state Department of Revenue to provide him “any and all options” to address the issue, and one day later he sent a letter to agency director Mark Schuling directing him to “hold off specific enforcement” for taxpayers who may have claimed federal disaster relief provisions on their state returns.

“I am aware that changes must be made by the Iowa Legislature in order for these same disaster relief provisions to be available for Iowa tax purposes,” Culver said in the letter. “This will require legislation in 2010 to couple with the federal law changes that will benefit those individuals and businesses directly impacted by the 2008 disasters.”

When Congress was debating the stimulus bill earlier this year, Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s, compared various forms of government spending and tax cuts in terms of economic stimulus “bang for the buck.” He concluded (pdf file) that various forms of government spending did more to stimulate the economy than various kinds of tax cuts.

The best kinds of spending in terms of stimulative effect were food stamps and extending unemployment benefits. Every extra dollar the federal government spends on food stamps generates approximately $1.73 in economic activity, and every dollar the federal government spends to extend unemployment benefits generates approximately $1.63 in economic activity. People who need these services are likely to spend additional money quickly, helping preserve jobs in the retail sector.

With this in mind, you might imagine that the states would take full advantage of money allocated to unemployment benefits in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. But you would be wrong, according to this article by Olga Pierce from ProPublica:

So far, only about half of the $7 billion included in the stimulus package [for expanding unemployment insurance] has been claimed by states. […]

Four states have explicitly rejected the funding, but many others have so far failed to pass legislation qualifying them for incentive payments. […]

Under the stimulus bill [2], states can qualify for the extra funding by extending unemployment insurance to new categories of workers. To receive a third of the funding, they must begin using something called an alternative base period, which would allow more low-wage workers to receive unemployment benefits. […]

To get the other two-thirds of the cash, they must adopt at least two other changes from a list that includes covering part-time workers and offering $15 extra per week for each dependent.

If states meet the requirements, they qualify for a federal lump sum payment that will cover the cost of expansion for at least three years, or longer in many cases. It was on those grounds – that after the federal funding runs out states will have to find another way to cover the cost – that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal [3], Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour [4] and others [5] that said they would reject the funding.

Bleeding-heart liberal that I am, I believe basic fairness justifies extending unemployment benefits to more part-time and low-wage workers. But even if you don’t care about fairness, Zandi’s analysis shows that extending unemployment benefits will get money circulating in the economy.

Click here for a map and a chart showing how much federal unemployment money each state has claimed.  

As of mid-June, 17 states had claimed none of the stimulus funding for unemployment benefits, and another 12 states and the District of Columbia had claimed only part of that money. In some of those states, Democrats are in charge. Progressives who have ridiculed Republican governors for rejecting stimulus money for unemployment benefits should also hold Democrats accountable on this score.

Fortunately, Iowa is among 21 states that have fully used these stimulus funds as Congress intended. Thousands of Iowans struggling to get by will benefit from the $70.8 million the stimulus bill appropriated to our state for unemployment benefits. Democrats in the state legislature and Governor Chet Culver deserve credit for enacting the necessary legislative changes to collect this funding.

Many of the states that have left stimulus money on the table have significantly higher unemployment rates than Iowa, by the way.

Speaking of boosting the economy, Zandi’s report showed that infrastructure projects were the third-most stimulative form of government spending. Every extra dollar spent on infrastructure generates an estimated $1.59 in economic activity. Remember that next time Iowa Republicans bring out their misleading talking points about the the I-JOBS program. Also remember that Iowa has used the stimulus bill’s transportation funding wisely compared to many other states, according to a recent review by Smart Growth America.

In contrast, most kinds of tax cuts Republicans advocate generate less than one dollar of economic activity for every dollar they cost the government. As a gesture to Republicans, Democrats replaced some spending in the stimulus bill with $70 billion allocated to fixing the alternative minimum tax, even though Zandi’s analysis found that a dollar spent on fixing the alternative minimum tax generates only about 49 cents in economic activity.

It’s too bad the Obama administration made a number of concessions to Republicans on the stimulus bill. Like Bob Herbert wrote a few months ago, when the GOP talks about the economy, nobody should listen.

Congressman Steve King showed us again on Tuesday why Esquire magazine named him one of the 10 Worst members of Congress last year. It wasn’t his hyperbole regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act (which in King’s view “will cost millions of Americans their jobs.”) Lots of Congressional Republicans are making equally ridiculous claims.

On Tuesday King distinguished himself as the only member of the U.S. House to vote against placing “a marker acknowledging the role that slave labor played in constructing the Capitol” in a “prominent location in the visitor center’s Emancipation Hall.” This was not a partisan resolution; 399 members of Congress voted yes, including certifiable wingnuts such as Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann.

King released a statement explaining his vote, and I’m posting it after the jump in case other Bleeding Heartland readers can make more sense out of it than I can. He claims the resolution acknowledging slave labor “was used as a bargaining chip” in negotiations over a Republican-sponsored resolution “Directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of ‘In God We Trust’ in the Capitol Visitor Center.” King objects:

Our Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation and should not be held hostage to yet another effort to place guilt on future Americans for the sins of some of their ancestors.

Reading King’s statement reminded me of Esquire’s observation:

King believes himself to be clever, and his list of idiot declarations is probably the longest in Washington.

Maybe someone else can find logic in King’s vote on Tuesday. As far as I’m concerned, and I have said this before, he’s like school in the summertime: no class.

UPDATE: Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan released the following statement on Thursday:

   “Iowans have a rich history of embracing diversity and of leading the nation in support of civil rights for African Americans. Years before the Civil War, Iowa Courts determined there would be no place for slavery in our state. Nearly a century before ‘Separate But Equal’ was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, we in Iowa desegregated our schools, opening opportunities for children and families without regard to race. And in the years since, our elected officials and courts have protected these rights, which we hold so dear. This is a tradition we can be proud of.

   But Congressman Steve King has flown in the face of our history of inclusion, and of progress. This vote is an embarrassment to his constituents, and to Iowa. Congressman King has once again showed that he is out of touch with Iowa values, and he must be held accountable for this vote. Iowans deserve better.”

SECOND UPDATE: King spoke with Radio Iowa about his reasons for casting this vote.

The parent company of the firm that allegedly exploited mentally disabled workers in Iowa claims not to be subject to our state’s labor laws, the Des Moines Register’s Clark Kauffman reported today.

In May, Iowa Workforce Development fined Henry’s Turkey Service $900,000 for 9,000 violations connected to men who worked at a plant in West Liberty. They received pitiful wages after fees were deducted for housing, food and other expenses.

But the parent company of Henry’s Turkey Service sees things differently:

An attorney for Hill Country Farms said in a written response that the company “is organized, operated and controlled according to the laws and regulations of the State of Texas” and is not subject to the Iowa laws it’s accused of violating.

The company maintains that all of the Iowa workers who lived for decades in a bunkhouse in Atalissa, near the West Liberty plant, were technically residents of Texas and that their real employer was West Liberty Foods, not Hill Country Farms.

State and corporate records support some elements of that argument but undercut other aspects of the company’s case.

For example, some of the Atalissa men were enrolled in Texas Medicaid – a program that in theory is open only to residents of Texas. But the W-2 tax forms in which the men’s wages were reported to the Internal Revenue Service indicate that Hill Country Farms, not West Liberty Foods, was the employer.

Kauffman writes that “it could be a year” before an administrative law judge rules on this case. I’m not an attorney, but I would hope Hill Country Farms is not able to get away with claiming men in Atalissa, Iowa, as Texas residents.

Staff at Iowa Workforce Development and the state legislature should look for ways to close any loopholes companies may be using to evade our labor standards.

Click here for the archive of Des Moines Register reports on Henry’s Turkey Service and the men it housed in Atalissa.

The first bill Senator Al Franken co-sponsored after being sworn in yesterday was the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s a cause Paul Wellstone would have supported strongly. (Click here for background on the EFCA.)

The Hill reported yesterday,

As expected, Franken has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, Indian Affairs Committee and Aging Committee. He will also sit on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee once the panel finishes marking up the healthcare reform legislation.

I don’t understand the logic of making Franken wait until after the health care bill markup before joining the HELP Committee, but at least he will be there when the Employee Free Choice Act is debated.

Getting to 60 votes on the EFCA will be a challenge, but Senator Tom Harkin has been working on a compromise since March. He told Bloomberg News in May that the “card check” provision may have to be dropped from the EFCA in order to get the bill through the Senate. “Card check” means that workers could form a union if a majority sign a document stating that they would like to join a union. Harkin suggested that a compromise bill might incorporate other changes to the election process and procedures for forming a labor union.

In that interview, Harkin did not mention whether binding arbitration would be a part of a workable compromise. Some people consider binding arbitration provisions to be as important a part of the EFCA as card check.

Whatever compromise Harkin crafts, I’m glad to know that Franken will be a voice for strong labor reform on the HELP Committee. I can’t wait to go hear Franken keynote Harkin’s steak fry on September 13.

UPDATE: Harkin’s communications director Kate Cyrul told Iowa Independent that Harkin is still working on this bill and expects the EFCA to pass this year.

Given Barack Obama’s Iowa caucus breakthrough and convincing general-election victory here, it was only a matter of time before someone else built an Iowa campaign around his strategy. I didn’t count on a Republican being the first person to try, though.

Enter Christian Fong, who made the Republican race for governor a lot more interesting last week.

Some early impressions of Fong’s personal narrative, political rhetoric and electoral prospects are after the jump.  

Such as the revolving door between Congress and corporate lobbyists:

The nation’s largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records. […]

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including  Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and  Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

So corporate groups are spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying to block a real public health insurance option, which most Americans want.

That’s on top of the millions of dollars the same corporate groups have donated directly to Congressional campaigns. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industries with the most at stake in health care reform.

Members of Congress claim lobbyists and campaign money don’t shape their opinions, but Grassley should know better. He understands that big money from pharmaceutical companies can influence the conclusions of medical researchers–why not elected officials?

Nate Silver has found strong evidence that special-interest money affects Democratic senators’ support for the public option in health care reform.

By the way, I wasn’t too cheered by Senator Chuck Schumer’s promise over the weekend that the health care bill will contain a public option. The current draft in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions excludes lots of people from choosing the public option over their current health insurance. That will limit competition for the private insurers that have near-monopolies in many markets.

Back in 2003 all the Democratic presidential candidates talked a good game on health care. Now Dick “this is a moral issue” Gephardt is lobbying for a pharmaceutical company. I’ll stand with Howard Dean and hope that John Edwards was wrong about the system being rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington.

Final note: Moveon.org is organizing health care rallies this Thursday, July 9, at senators’ offices in their home states. Sign up here to attend a rally near you.

Political activity slows down a bit during the summer, but there are still plenty of things to do if you’re not spending hours a day training for RAGBRAI. Read all about it after the jump. As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of something I’ve left out.

If you live in the first Congressional district, consider attending one of Bruce Braley’s town-hall meetings on health care reform in Dubuque,  Oelwein, Davenport and Waterloo (click “there’s more” for details). According to a statement from his office,

Braley will discuss the draft House health care reform bill, listen to constituents’ concerns, and take questions.  Braley is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the committee in charge of authoring healthcare reform legislation.

Braley’s town hall meetings on healthcare reform are free and open to the public.

Attendees are strongly encouraged to RSVP at: http://braley.house.gov/townhall.

Speaking of health care reform, Moveon.org is looking for people to help deliver petitions this Thursday, July 9, to the Iowa offices of Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley. Click here to sign up.

UPDATE: I added information about Governor Chet Culver’s upcoming appearances in eastern Iowa to highlight I-JOBS and Rebuild Iowa projects.

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office has advised the Iowa Department of Public Health that a married lesbian who gives birth cannot list her spouse on the child’s birth certificate, according to Michael Gartner’s must-read scathing commentary in this week’s Cityview. Excerpt:

[Attorney General Tom] Miller’s lawyers based their advice on the fact that the decision made no direct reference to the Iowa Code section on birth certificates, which refers to “husband.” “The Supreme Court ruling “does not authorize an interpretation of chapter 144 (vital statistics, including birth certificates) in a manner that would allow for a same-sex spouse to be automatically listed as the parent on birth certificates,” they said. And, insultingly and gratuitously, they added: “Using the adoption process is the best way to protect the interests and rights of all parties involved.”

How shameful.

For more than 125 years, the Iowa Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the legitimate child of the woman and her spouse – even if the woman was pregnant by another man at the time of the wedding, even if the woman was impregnated by another man during her marriage. “The law presumes that a child born in wedlock is legitimate,” the court said in 1882. More than 100 years later, in 1995, the court ruled in a similar case that “the state’s interests involve preserving the integrity of the family [and] the best interests of the child….” Yes, “the best interests of the child.”

The Iowa Code couldn’t be clearer. Section 252 says: “A child or children born of parents who, at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of such child, have entered into a civil or religious marriage ceremony, shall be deemed the legitimate child or children of both parents, regardless of the validity of such marriage.” And the Supreme Court says gays can marry one another.

Go read Gartner’s whole piece, which highlights key passages from the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum v Brien. He also points out that adopting a child involves significant time and expense.

I’m surprised that the Attorney General’s Office would give the Iowa Department of Public Health bad advice on this matter. Tom Miller strongly praised the court’s “clear and well-reasoned opinion” the day Varnum v Brien was announced. Miller’s advice helped persuade Governor Chet Culver not to seek to overturn the ruling. Assistant Attorney General Heather Adams wrote a memo reminding all Iowa county recorders that they must comply with the decision and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Iowa Department of Public Health should give married spouses equal protection under the law.

Happy Independence Day to the Bleeding Heartland community! I’m hoping for dry weather today after rain soaked parade-goers in West Des Moines last night.

How are you celebrating the holiday? Charles Lemos listens to the Broadway musical 1776 every year on the 4th of July. Sounds like a good tradition.

Over at Slate, Troy Patterson made the case against fireworks.

I enjoy big fireworks displays, but I don’t like amateurs messing around with firecrackers. Not only are those dangerous, they can be very upsetting to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder:

These days I dread the 4th. It’s not for the jingoism I was too young to understand as a child, which irks me, but I try not to let other’s infantile politics change the spirit of the holiday for me.  The real reason is I’m not much for fireworks anymore.  I haven’t been since I came back from Iraq. […]

Not the big, professional kind.  While I don’t enjoy them nearly as much as I used to, I can observe them with no apprehension.  It’s the amateur fireworks I can’t stand.  The whistling, popping, exploding-at-random-intervals kind that rub my nerves raw.  All of my neighbors, it seems, are fireworks enthusiasts, and every 4th they come out of the woodwork.  The night’s events bother my dog less than me, while I spend the evening on pins and needles, jumping at every explosion, transported for a split-second back to that hellhole until I remind myself that I am home, that I am safe, that I survived.

If you know a veteran of this or any other war, take a moment tomorrow to make sure that they are all right, that the images of horror and death don’t weight too heavy on them.  That they are as close to normal as they’ll ever be.

I never thought about that until I read this post by Steve Gilliard on Independence Day three years ago:

Personally, I hate fireworks, the noise, the explosions. Always reminded me of Pathfinder Force over Germany. Don’t much like the 4th of July either.

But I just wanted to say that for a lot of people, this is a very tough day, especially with PTSD. While everyone else is celebrating, they’re either alone, or pretending nothing is wrong. And every firecracker reminds them exactly what is wrong, and why they aren’t the same.

It’s easy to talk about sacrifice on the 4th of July. But who talks about what people live with?

Final note: military service isn’t the only way to serve your country. In my book, Rob Marqusee is a true American patriot. I’m inspired by his personal commitment to improving health and economic vitality in his community. Marqusee recently completed his “local food challenge,” and I recommend reading his online journal about the experience.

Few people will take on the challenge of eating a completely local diet, but small steps by many to eat more local food and buy from locally-owned shops will make a difference.

Share your own thoughts about holiday celebrations and American heroes in this thread.

UPDATE: Fun parade in Windsor Heights despite overcast skies and unseasonably cool weather. Most people kept it civil, but some weird group of wingnuts filled their yard with signs about Obama being MARXIST and shouted “Obamanation!” at the Polk County Democrats as we passed by. I laughed at them and threw candy to their kids.

If you had asked me to guess which Republican governor would resign on the Friday before 4th of July weekend, I would have put money on Mark “I met my soul mate” Sanford of South Carolina.

But surprisingly, it’s Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who announced plans to resign without giving a coherent explanation.

I haven’t been right about everything, but I always knew John McCain did Democrats a favor by elevating Palin to superstardom.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Talking Points Memo has the full transcript of Palin’s resignation speech.

In this clip, Palin explains that she doesn’t want to “put Alaskans through” the horror of having a lame-duck governor. She’s transferring power to the lieutenant governor because she’s “not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual”:

Indictment? Family situation? Your guess is as good as mine.

I think we can all agree that someone who didn’t even stick it out for one whole term as governor has no future in electoral politics.

SECOND UPDATE: So much unintentional comedy in Palin’s speech today. I like this part:

Life is too short to compromise time and resources… it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: “Sit down and shut up”, but that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish “go with the flow”.

So, she’s resigning after less than one term because she doesn’t want to take “a quitter’s way out.”

THIRD UPDATE: Steve Benen lays out seven possible reasons for Palin’s resignation. He thinks she is running for president. That makes no sense to me–she could have served out her term and not run for re-election in 2010, leaving plenty of time to campaign for president.

Chris Bowers thinks Palin mainly wants to cash in on her celebrity before running for president, but I lean toward Josh Marshall’s view. There may be a major scandal or criminal indictment coming down the pike.

A friend sent me an e-mail she received from the Iowa Farm Bureau. Excerpt:

Mary Kay Thatcher, AFBF director of public policy, tells Agriculture Online that Farm Bureau doesn’t anticipate the massive climate change bill passed by the House last week to pass the Senate this year.

And the New York Times reported Tuesday that opposition from Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups threatens to kill the bill in the Senate. The Times reports that groups such as AFBF wield greater clout in the Senate, because members there must be protective of an entire state, rather than a small congressional district.

Here are the links to the Agriculture Online piece and the New York Times article.

The American Farm Bureau Federation lobbied members of the U.S. House to vote for Collin Peterson’s lousy amendments to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act but against the bill intended to address climate change.

I have my own problems with the ACES bill, especially the deals made to appease the coal industry and Peterson’s colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee. That said, the objections big agribusiness and their Congressional allies have raised against the cap-and-trade approach are off-base and short-sighted.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Farm Bureau’s vote-counter is correct and the Senate rejects the Waxman-Markey bill for the wrong reasons. Frankly, that might be better than letting senators like Claire McCaskill of Missouri make this flawed bill even worse.

Iowa communities of all sizes will hold public celebrations of Independence Day this weekend. Most of the parades take place on July 4, but a few cities, such as West Des Moines, schedule a parade for the evening of July 3. As I wrote here a year ago, I encourage Bleeding Heartland readers to volunteer with your local Democrats on this holiday. Parades are a fun way to spend an hour or two with like-minded people in your area.

I’ll be walking with the Polk County Democrats in the Windsor Heights parade on Saturday. I haven’t decided what to write on my hand-made sign. In past years I’ve tried to express my values without a partisan slant: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women!) are created equal…”

Some environmental organizations, including Repower America, are encouraging people to “declare their energy independence” on the 4th of July.

This thread is for any comments on your plans for the holiday. Please also post any suggestions for a good parade sign.

If you’re traveling this weekend, drive safely and consider “ecodriving” to improve your mileage.

I mentioned in this post that it’s been a full year since the Iowa Smokefree Air Act went into effect. The public smoking ban was one of the most controversial bills considered during the 2008 legislative session, and advocates praised the law’s success at a press conference this week.

According to a recent Iowa Department of Public Health survey, 14 percent of Iowans smoke. In 2007, IDPH research estimated the smoking rate at 19 percent. That’s a significant decline, suggesting that around one-quarter of Iowans who smoked in 2007 have since quit. The $1 a pack tax hike on cigarettes approved in 2007 was probably a major factor in this trend as well.

The overwhelming majority of Iowa businesses are complying with the smoking ban, according to a June 30 press release from the IDPH. A little more than 1 percent of Iowa businesses with employees (1,015 to be exact) have received a “Notice of Potential Violation” from the IDPH. Of those, approximately half are bars and restaurants. I’m not surprised, since bar and restaurant owners were the smoking ban’s most vocal opponents (despite research showing that smoking bans do not hurt businesses in the hospitality industry). For those who want more details on compliance with the Smokefree Air Act, I’ve posted the IDPH press release after the jump.

Although some Democrats were angry that the legislature took on this issue last year, I’m proud to have supported the smoking ban at this blog for all the reasons I listed here.  

Senator Chuck Grassley has been holding town-hall meetings around the state this week, and the Iowa Democratic Party highlighted a fun clip from his June 30 meeting in Waukon. A constituent wanted to know why his health insurance policy was so much more expensive than Grassley’s, despite having less generous coverage.

The senator advised the questioner to “go work for John Deere” if he wanted a better insurance policy. (Not too practical, since Deere has laid off workers in Dubuque, Ottumwa and the Quad Cities this year.) As Grassley tried to move on to the next question, the man continued to press for details about Grassley’s own coverage, and the senator advised him to go talk to the people at the Farm Services Administration about health insurance.

But the questioner followed up again: “How come I can’t have the same thing you have?”

To which Grassley replied, “You can. Go work for the federal government.”

Since there aren’t too many federal government jobs in the Waukon area, I have a better idea: why doesn’t Grassley support a real public health insurance option for all Americans?

UPDATE: Here was Grassley in Iowa City today:

Hoping that health care reform plans implode under weight of Democratic in-fighting is a bet he’s not willing to make.

“I’m not a gambler.” Grassley said. “If you go a partisan way, the Democrats have the capability of screwing up our health care system forever. If it is screwed up forever, we could get big majorities two or four years down the road, but we ain’t going to turn it around. So I’m a little more cautious than a lot of my Republican colleagues.”

The best bet for getting a bill to President Obama this year is the bipartisan work being done by the Senate Finance Committee where he is the ranking Republican, Grassley said. Whatever reform plan that comes out of the House will be highly-partisan just by the nature of the House, he predicted. Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has rejected Republican input.

I’m supposed to believe that Grassley is worried about the public option because it would “screw up” health care so badly that Republicans couldn’t fix it even with large majorities?

First of all, Republicans aren’t going to win back the Senate majority in two or four years. It will be a longer climb.

Second, Republicans are fighting the public option because they’re afraid it would work too well, causing private insurers to lose market share to the more affordable public plan. (See here.) They are desperate to avoid that outcome because it would likely realign American politics in the Democrats’ favor for a long time. That’s what Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz is warning them against.

I sincerely hope that the House Progressive Caucus votes down a Grassley-friendly bipartisan health care bill (individual mandate to buy for-profit private insurance that doesn’t compete with any public plan). If President Obama wants to claim victory on this issue, he’ll have to get behind a bill that would be better than the status quo. Democrats would be fools to listen to Grassley on either the substance or the politics of health care reform.

Iowa’s 2009 fiscal year ended on June 30, and if the Legislative Service Agency’s projections are correct, net revenues will fall well short of what legislators anticipated when they approved the 2009 budget. The Legislative Service Agency puts the possible shortfall at $161 million, whereas Iowa’s budget director Dick Oshlo says things don’t look that bad:

Total gross receipts for FY 2009 are $6.921 billion, which is only $57.7 million lower than the Revenue Estimating Conference’s official estimate of $6.979 billion.

Dick Oshlo, state budget director, said: “With yesterday marking the end of the fiscal year, we now know the state’s gross receipts for FY 2009. While the state’s tax receipts deteriorated more than expected during the last two months of the fiscal year due to the ongoing effects of the national economic recession, this is a manageable number. Fortunately, receipts improved during the final days of June.  At this point we see no legitimate reason for a special session to balance the state’s budget.”

Meanwhile, Republican State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Chris Rants says Governor Chet Culver should call legislators back to the capitol:

“It is time to quit worrying about the political ramifications of admitting that we have a deficit and get about the business of fixing it,” Rants said. “Gov. [Tom] Vilsack put aside partisan politics and called a special session in 2001 and 2002 to balance the budget after revenues declined. Culver needs to do the same.”

I wasn’t living here during Vilsack’s first term and don’t know how bad the projected shortfalls were in those years, compared to what Iowa is facing now. Culver’s office argues that we won’t know the real picture for a while yet:

The LSA’s figures are just estimates, and true net receipts won’t be known until September when the Department of Management closes the books on the fiscal year 2009 budget.

There is also revenue that will be collected within the next 90 days but allocated to the fiscal year that ended Tuesday, money that will improve the state’s financial situation and is not included in the LSA projections.

Culver Press Secretary Troy Price told the Iowa Independent last month that until accruals, expenditures and refunds are all taken into account there is no way of getting an accurate picture of the 2009 budget.

Like Chris Woods, I felt a special session was warranted last year to address flood relief and recovery issues, but that never happened. Incidentally, many Iowa Republicans opposed calling the legislature back in response to the flooding.

I’d like to hear from others in the Bleeding Heartland community. Should Culver call legislators back in light of the possible budget deficit?

I’ll update this post later today after Culver’s press conference with State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald. According to Lynn Campbell of IowaPolitics.com, they will discuss the budget and “new info” on state finances.

LATE UPDATE: Forgot to update yesterday. As you can see from ragbrai08’s comment below, Vilsack called a special session in October 2001. Like Culver, he waited until all the numbers were in (rather than calling the legislature back shortly after June 30). It’s quite misleading for Rants to suggest Culver is being less prudent here than Vilsack.

At yesterday’s press conference, Culver said he is “very confident” the 2009 budget is balanced. He and Fitzgerald emphasized Iowa’s AAA bond rating:

“In a very partisan way, the Republicans running for governor are misleading people,” Culver says. “…So I think it’s very important to make sure that we hold those people accountable that are misleading Iowans. It’s just not fair. It’s not appropriate and there’s no need for alarm.” […]

Culver is also stressing that the Wall Street firm “Standard and Poors” just “reaffirmed” Iowa’s triple-A bond rating.

“What a timely testimonial from (Standard and Poors.)  They’re just looked at our books inside and out,” Culver says.  “They’ve looked at our debt.  They’ve looked at our revenue streams.  They’ve determined…that Iowa is one of the best-managed states in America.”

That triple-A bond rating (the highest on the Standard and Poors scale) means Iowa will be able to borrow money for the I-JOBS program at favorable interest rates.

Bob Krause, who is running for U.S. Senate next year against five-term incumbent Chuck Grassley, was in the news last week with some sensible comments about health care reform. He encouraged Grassley to demand higher reimbursement rates for Iowa health care providers in exchange for dropping his opposition to a public option in the Senate bill:

Iowa ranks 49th in Medicare reimbursement, Krause said. That makes it hard for the state to attract and retain health professionals, according to various state officials, including Grassley, who has long advocated for reforms in the reimbursement system.

“This has hurt the quality of medical care in Iowa as some doctors refuse Medicare patients because of the low reimbursement rate,” Krause said. “On the flip side, continuing with only private providers for health insurance coverage hurts Iowans because it locks in a monopoly.” More than 80 percent of the Iowa health insurance market in Iowa is controlled by just two companies.

A public option would provide competition for the private insurers, Krause said.

Krause is obviously right on both counts, but don’t expect Grassley to listen. He is the leading Republican voice against the public option and has an ally in Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat whose health care reform plan may be worse than the insurance industry’s.

Iowa Democrats have given Grassley a pass for too many years. I appreciate Krause’s commitment to running a real race against him. I encourage you to donate to his campaign and get to know him better by checking out his website. Blog for Iowa’s three-part interview with Krause is a good read as well. Here are the links:

part 1 (a bit of personal history, Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus, plus views on gay rights and progressivism)

part 2 (about Krause’s campaign strategy and views on the environment and Judge Sonia Sotomayor)

part 3 (about health care reform, media reform and RAGBRAI)

This thread is for any comments about the 2010 Senate race in Iowa. How could Krause use his campaign funds most effectively? Which issues should he emphasize in making a case against Grassley?

July 1, 2009 is a big day: the 4,800 residents of Windsor Heights are no longer divided by three zip codes. It couldn’t have happened without Congressman Leonard Boswell’s legislative efforts last year, and that probably wouldn’t have happened without Ed Fallon’s primary challenge. (Note: WHO’s Dave Price attended last night’s event celebrating our new zip code.)

Don’t feel left out if you’re among the 3 million Iowans who aren’t enjoying the good life in our state’s only inner-ring suburb. You too may be affected by one of the many laws that take effect today.

The Iowa House Democrats posted a partial list of these laws on their site, and Jason Hancock provided additional information at Iowa Independent, such as the margin by which these bills passed during the 2009 session. Many won unanimous approval or overwhelming bipartisan majorities in one or both chambers.

Most of the new laws are steps in the right direction for Iowa: increased foreclosure protections; $30 million in historic tax credits; expanded health care for children, low-income pregnant women and adult children under 25; broader eligibility for wind energy tax credits; more job protection for volunteer emergency providers, electronic logbooks to track pseudoephedrine sales. A few of the highlights on the House Democrats’ list deserve additional comment.

New rules for sex offenders: I’m glad that legislators replaced pointless sex offender residency restrictions that did nothing to protect children from predators, according to prosecutors as well as advocates for exploited children.  Too bad nobody listened to State Representative Ed Fallon, who was the only legislator to vote against the 2002 law and got bashed for that vote during his primary challenge against Boswell (see also here). Speaking of campaigns, Chris Rants was one of only three state representatives to vote against the new sex offender law. Will he make this an issue in the gubernatorial race?

Manure application during winter: On principle I think it’s a bad idea for legislators to interfere with the rulemaking process at the Department of Natural Resources. However, amendments greatly improved this bill from the version that passed the Iowa Senate. In fact, the new law includes tougher restrictions on liquid manure application than the rules that the DNR would have eventually produced. It’s important to note that these restrictions only apply to manure from hogs. Cattle farmers face no new limits on what to do with solid manure during winter.

Consumer fraud protections: Iowans rightly no longer need permission from the Attorney General’s Office to sue some types of businesses for fraud. Unfortunately, this law contains an embarrassingly long list of exemptions.

Nursing home rules: It’s pure chutzpah for House Democrats to write, “Nursing homes will face higher fines for incidents resulting in death or severe injury.” More like, nursing homes will no longer be fined for the violations most likely to result in death or severe injury, but are subject to higher fines for offenses regulators never charge anyone with.

Let’s end this post on a positive note. The septic tank inspection law approved during the 2008 session also takes effect today. Over time these inspections will reduce water pollution produced by unsewered communities in Iowa. Credit goes to the legislators who approved this bill last year and to Governor Chet Culver. He wisely used his line-item veto to block State Senator Joe Seng’s attempt to sneak a one-year delay of the septic tank inspections into an appropriations bill.

This thread is for any thoughts about Iowa’s brand-new laws. Probably none of them will be as controversial as the public smoking ban that took effect on July 1, 2008.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register reports that Franken will headline Senator Tom Harkin’s steak fry on September 13.

The 2008 elections finally ended today. Norm Coleman conceded the U.S. race in Minnesota following a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling in Al Franken’s favor.

Talking Points Memo posted their Top 10 moments from the mostly infuriating, sometimes comical Franken-Coleman saga.

We can laugh at Coleman’s pretzel logic during the legal proceedings, but unfortunately, his gamesmanship deprived Minnesota of full representation in the Senate for half a year. In all likelihood Franken will be stuck with less-than-stellar committee assignments. Also, the delay did lasting damage to Franken’s seniority. Had he been sworn in on time, he would have outranked several fellow Senate Democrats, which could become important one or two terms down the road.

Nevertheless, I have high hopes for Senator Franken and look forward to his work in Washington.

P.S.- I still don’t understand why so many Minnesotans voted for Dean Barkley.

P.P.S.- Rush Limbaugh is still a big fat idiot.  

June 29 was exactly 120 days since the federal government released highway funds to the states as part of the economic stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Smart Growth America marked the occasion by releasing a review on how wisely states are spending the transportation money.

The 120-day mark is significant because it is the point by which states and territories are required to have obligated 50 percent of the flexible money granted them for transportation projects by the federal government. The money is meant to stimulate the economy, but also – in the language of the Act – “to invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.”

Iowa received about $358 million in federal highway stimulus funds, and I was pleased to read in Smart Growth America’s report (pdf file) that our state’s allocations compare favorably with those in most other states. Follow me after the jump for more details.  

The I-JOBS Board met in Cedar Rapids today and awarded money for the first time, approving eight flood recovery projects worth $45.5 million. All of the projects are in Linn County except for $500,000 awarded to help the city of Elkader build a new fire station. More details are in this press release from the governor’s office, which I have posted after the jump.

Attacking the I-JOBS bonding program has become a staple of Iowa Republicans’ speeches and newsletters (see also here and here). I would like Republicans to explain how they would pay for flood recovery projects like the ones approved today. Or would they prefer “small government” that doesn’t repair public libraries or build new county offices and fire stations?

The good news is, the Iowa Democratic Party’s Hall of Fame event on Saturday night raised close to $200,000, twice as much as the Republican Party of Iowa brought in with last Thursday’s “Night of the Rising Stars.” Even better, Democrats paid reasonable prices (starting at $35, I believe) for heavy hors d’oevres and a ticket to hear Tom Vilsack, Christie Vilsack and Sally Pederson. In contrast, Republicans paid $100 ($50 for those under 35) for Chex mix, a cash bar and Haley Barbour.

Now for the bad news, courtesy of Paul Deaton at Blog for Iowa:

Governor Culver bragged about the success of the event’s fund raising efforts, saying that more money had been raised this year than in any of the previous years of the Hall of Fame event. What Chet Culver does not understand is that it is false success when among the 2009 Hall of Fame Hosts are listed the powerful interests that stymie the efforts of the progressive movement to do what is right in Iowa and in Washington.

One asks what do Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, MidAmerican Energy, Planned Parenthood, the Iowa Medical PAC, Mediacom, the Iowa Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, the Iowa Corn Growers Association and other political action committees, business associations and corporations want with their donation besides access and favorable attention to advance their agendas? The Iowa Democratic Party, despite statements made during the speeches, is far from being the grassroots party we need it to become. Grassroots activism, in my view, needs to eliminate the influence of the large, moneyed entities. A good place to start would be to cease accepting corporate sponsorship of party events. This seems unlikely in a Culver administration.

It’s normal for corporate interests to cozy up to the party in power, and why shouldn’t they? Look how well things turned out for the nursing home industry in Iowa this year.

I recognize the pressure Democrats are under to keep pace with Republican fundraising, but leaving big problems unaddressed for fear of offending business groups will not keep newly registered Democrats excited about voting and volunteering next year.

Looking further ahead, the corporate sponsors that made this weekend’s event a success may keep Culver from becoming the great governor he wants to be.

I don’t have an answer other than supporting individual Democratic candidates who stand for my beliefs and organizations working toward real campaign finance reform. If you have any better ideas, please post them in this thread.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued reports on Friday detailing the problems with the “health care status quo” across the country. You can find the reports at HealthReform.gov. The report for Iowa is here, and I’ve also posted it after the jump. Among other things, it shows the percent increase in family health insurance premiums since 2000 and the percentage of uninsured Iowans.

A couple of points jumped out at me:

• Choice of health insurance is limited in Iowa. Wellmark BC and BS alone constitutes 71 percent of the health insurance market share in Iowa, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 80 percent.11

Iowa is not unusual in this regard. Most insurance markets in the United States are dominated by one or two companies. My family’s Wellmark premiums went up 10 percent this year alone. Speaking of which, the annual salary of Wellmark’s CEO has “nearly doubled” in the past five years to about $2.5 million.

• Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Iowa, premiums can vary, within limits, based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can exclude pre-existing conditions or even be denied completely.

I know a family in Des Moines who were unable to purchase health insurance at any price because the mother has a thyroid condition. They are now covered through the father’s employer, but if he loses his job they will have no health insurance options.

Two more reasons why we cannot settle for health care reform without a public option, or with a fake public option. I was glad to see several House Democratic caucuses affirm that they will fight any health care bill lacking “a real and robust public option that lives up to our criteria”.

Click “there’s more” to read the whole report, with supporting footnotes.

I just had the perfect lunch: a big orange local tomato sliced with olive oil, fresh basil, Northern Prairie Chevre and a little salt.

Since summer is the best time of year for salads, I thought I’d invite you to share your favorite recipes in this thread.

What do you love to pour over a leafy green salad? We’ve been getting fantastic greens from One Step at a Time Gardens, and I keep making the same dressing: grapeseed oil, a little cider vinegar, a little dijon mustard, a little honey, a little salt.

Here’s a dressing for potato salad that will suit vegans or mayonnaise-haters like me. It’s a North African dish from The Book of Jewish Food by Claudia Roden. You can also stir it into cooked carrots, or a mixture of potatoes and carrots.

A few Tbsp of lemon juice

4-5 Tbsp extra virgin olive oil

1/2 tsp ground cumin

1 tsp paprika

pinch cayenne pepper

3 garlic cloves, crushed or finely chopped (you can go lighter on garlic if you don’t love it)

salt to taste

Combine the dressing ingredients while you are boiling potatoes, carrots or both. When veggies are tender, chop them or mash them, then mix them with the dressing in a bowl. This is a great dish for potlucks at any time of the year, because it’s good at room temperature too.

The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) barely passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a 219-212 vote today. As you can see from the roll call, Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted for the bill, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against.

King claimed ACES “could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress.”

Latham brought a big box to the House chamber, with the label “TO: CHINA. FROM: The U.S. CONGRESS.” Inside the box was a hardhat labeled “American jobs.”

What a joke. The ACES bill should create jobs, although it would have created a lot more if it contained better renewable energy targets.

According to Populista, only three House Democrats voted against ACES because it was too weak, while 41 voted against it because it was supposedly too strong, even with all the compromises made to placate regional and corporate interests. I have to agree with Ezra Klein: “our political process has gone into total system failure and the overriding priority is building the long-term case for structural reform of America’s lawmaking process”.

UPDATE: Congressman Braley issued the following statement after the Waxman-Markey bill passed:

“This landmark energy bill will create thousands of clean energy jobs in Iowa, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and take a big step forward toward tackling climate change.  This represents a huge new investment in renewable energy in the United States.  While this bill is far from perfect, it does include provisions that help consumers and exempt agriculture.  The bottom line is that we need to act now to address our nation’s energy problems and create jobs.”

Congressman Loebsack issued a longer statement, which I’ve posted after the jump. The key point relates to an amendment Loebsack was able to get in the ACES bill:

Congressman Loebsack’s amendment to the bill will amend the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program so that building owners receiving disaster assistance can use the disaster assistance funds to leverage additional or matching funds to make energy efficient improvements to their homes and businesses. The REEP program provides funding to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Congressman Loebsack’s amendment will maximize the benefits of the REEP program for disaster victims by helping Iowa homes become more energy efficient. It would also require that FEMA make information available to disaster victims that the REEP program is available for them to make energy efficiency improvements post-disaster.

SECOND UPDATE: Radio Iowa has more on the theatrics from Latham and King. Republican demagoguery has reached new lows on this bill.

All week I’ve been trying to decide what to write about the upcoming vote on HR 2454, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). The U.S. House is scheduled to vote today, so I better not delay any longer.

Some arguments for and against the bill are after the jump.

The Des Moines Register announced yesterday that Kathie Obradovich will be the paper’s new political columnist. Her first column will run this Sunday.

Obradovich has covered Iowa politics for many years and been the Register’s political editor since 2003. She replaces David Yepsen, who earlier this year left to become director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Even though the Register’s statewide reach is not what it was a few decades ago, Yepsen still played an agenda-setting role for Iowa politicians and fellow journalists. Sometimes that was for the good, when he called attention to possible backroom deals at the statehouse. However, Yepsen sometimes forgot that his disapproval didn’t automatically make a political strategy illegitimate. I don’t think he ever apologized for wrongly giving his readers the impression that there was something unfair about encouraging college students to come back to Iowa for the 2008 caucuses, for instance. He was too quick to cite think tank reports as proof that Iowans are overtaxed, without considering the services Iowans get for our tax dollars compared to low-tax states like South Dakota. I also didn’t appreciate his suggestion that women’s political opinions are more “catty” than men’s.

May Obradovich use her agenda-setting power wisely.

I’ve posted the Register’s press release announcing Obradovich’s promotion after the jump.

I rarely write about pop culture here, but being a blogger of a certain age, I can’t help commenting on the passing of two icons of my childhood today.

Yes, I watched “Charlie’s Angels.” I mostly identified with the Kate Jackson character (the “smart one”), but I did try to get one of those angle-cut, flipped-back Farrah Fawcett haircuts when I was in junior high. People still remember Farrah more than anyone else from that show, even though she was only on for one season.

Few people took Farrah seriously as an actress, but her performances in “Extremities” and “The Burning Bed” were incredible.

I’ve listened to Michael Jackson for as long as I can remember; my siblings played Jackson 5 albums a lot. Although I liked some of the songs on “Thriller” and listened to the tape a thousand times on my giant-sized Sony Walkman, for me the best Michael Jackson music will always be from the late-70s album “Off the Wall.”

My favorite is Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough (you’ll have to click the link to see the video–embedding has been disabled). Or, listen to the song here:

“Rock With You” was also a great song:

You Tube is full of re-mixes and live takes of these songs, but tonight I would rather listen to the originals and remember Michael Jackson before plastic surgery and all the other weirdness in his life.

Share your memories here.

The Republican Party of Iowa is celebrating its “rising stars” tonight at an event featuring Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. Judging by what we’ve heard lately from Iowa GOP leaders, they’re gonna party like it’s 1929.

Case in point: Iowa Senate Minority leader Paul McKinley. The possible gubernatorial candidate’s weekly memos continue to whine about spending and borrowing by Democrats (see also here). Republicans would rather slash government programs and provide “targeted” one-year tax credits.

The lessons of Herbert Hoover’s presidency are still lost on these people. I apologize for repeating myself, but excessive government spending cuts can turn an economic recession into a depression. Since state governments cannot run budget deficits, it makes sense for the federal government to help the states “backfill” their budgets. That was the express purpose of the state transfer funds in the stimulus package.

In addition, it is prudent to spend federal funds on projects with long-term benefits. Energy Secretary Steven Chu was in Des Moines on June 23 to highlight the first installment of what will be $41 million in stimulus funds for renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects in Iowa. Energy efficiency programs in particular will have huge collateral benefits, saving consumers money while helping the environment.

No matter how many times Republicans repeat their misleading talking points about the I-JOBS state bonding initiative Democrats passed this year, it is prudent to borrow money for worthwhile projects when interest rates are low. I don’t hear McKinley or other Republican leaders telling businesses not to borrow money to make capital improvements.

Share any thoughts about Republican ideas, rhetoric, or career lobbyist Haley Barbour in this thread.

I was not able to watch President Obama’s health care forum on ABC Wednesday evening. ABC News posted a summary here. I liked that Obama defended the public option and said Republican senators who criticized it are wrong.

If you watched the program, what did you think of the questions and the president’s answers?

Consider this an open thread for any comment about health care reform, or any other political issue that’s on your mind.

At some point I’ll write about whether health care activists were right to draw a line in the sand early over a public option, or whether ragbrai08 is right that it was a mistake not to organize more strongly for single-payer (HR 676). What do other Bleeding Heartland readers think?

Earlier this week I wrote about a Survey USA poll taken June 15, which showed Governor Chet Culver’s approval rating at 42 percent. That was the same approval number that SUSA found for Culver in its April poll. However, I did not realize that SUSA also conducted a poll in late May, which showed somewhat better numbers for Culver: 48 approve, 47 disapprove.

Probably this is just statistical noise, and Culver’s support is somewhere in the 40s. Alternatively, if you have some hypothesis that would explain why the governor’s support rose in May but dropped by mid-June, please post a comment.

Click here to see all of SUSA’s approval numbers for Culver since he became governor.

It would be nice if some other polling firm released a new Iowa survey soon.

There’s a lot going on in central Iowa this weekend. If you’ve never been to the Des Moines Arts Festival, head downtown to check it out. Bonus tip: If you love art, check out the “other art show” in the Varied Industries Building at the State Fairgrounds this weekend. You’re more likely to find art you can afford there. I go every year to buy note cards with art photography or reproductions of paintings. I also like to look at children’s clothing decorated by a batik artist (she also sells women’s clothes).

This is an unusually busy week in Iowa politics, considering that’s summer in a non-election year. Governor Chet Culver is taking a campaign train to several western Iowa locations today (Wednesday). Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is headlining a Republican event on Thursday. The Iowa Democratic Party’s Hall of Fame awards ceremony is on Saturday.

If you attend any of these events, please post a comment or put up a diary afterwards.

Event details are after the jump.  

Three Republicans who may run for governor attended a June 15 event in Boone featuring Ed Failor, leader of Iowans for Tax Relief. During a typical Republican speech about how Democrats are wrecking the country, Failor went beyond boilerplate rhetoric and likened Democratic economic policies to events in Nazi Germany in 1933.

Iowa Democratic Party leaders want to know whether State Representative Chris Rants, State Senator Jerry Behn, and Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey agree with Failor’s analogy. After the jump I’ve posted an action alert asking Iowa Democrats to contact Behn, Rants and Northey to ask them if they agree with Failor’s remarks, and if not, why they didn’t speak up at the time.

The Boone News Republican followed up on the story today and posted a longer excerpt from Failor’s speech. I’ve posted that after the jump as well, though from where I’m sitting the larger context doesn’t make him look any less unhinged.

I doubt any Republican will distance himself from Failor. Iowans for Tax Relief and its members could be helpful during next year’s gubernatorial primary. Speaking to the Boone Times Republican, Behn dismissed the incident as much ado about nothing. Failor’s in no mood to apologize either:

“I was very careful to say that I like Pat Murphy, he is a good guy,” Failor said.

When you have a political disagreement with a “good guy” you like, do you say he is “behaving as a jack-booted Nazi”? Neither do I.

Failor added that he completely stands by his statement. He said that previous examples of political parties that succeed in taking too much power never end up being successful, or good for a country’s well-being.

“When you try to find an example of one party, normally by election and fairly, taking over means of production, it never works out well,” Failor said. “I stand by that, if you are a student of history you will know there is no example of that where it didn’t go terribly wrong eventually. And, in many cases, it started with the best of intentions.”

Can’t say that I’m too impressed by Failor as a “student of history.”

Only three states (Iowa, Louisiana and Alabama) allow citizens to deduct their federal tax payments on their state income tax returns. Yet to Failor, Democratic efforts to make our tax code more like laws in 47 other states is tantamount to “taking over means of production.” Ejecting people who were disrupting a public hearing from the legislative chamber is comparable to how Nazis treated their political opponents.

I don’t pretend to understand the psychological need to elevate a dispute over tax policy into some heroic struggle against dictatorship. I doubt dire warnings about fascism (or Marxism, depending on your paranoid mood) are going to scare Iowans back into electing Republicans.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Survey USA released a new batch of approval ratings for governors based on polls taken June 16. Our own Chet Culver was at 42 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval. The previous SUSA poll in Iowa, taken in late April, found similar numbers for Culver: 42 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. (CORRECTION: I did not realize that SUSA also conducted a poll in late May, which showed somewhat better numbers for Culver: 48 approve, 47 disapprove. Click here to see all of SUSA’s approval numbers for Culver since he became governor.)

Having noticed that Culver’s SUSA numbers bounced up last May and June after being in net negative territory from February through April 2008, I wondered whether a “legislative session effect” might have dragged him down from February through April of this year. Either that was not the case, or the weaker economy this year has prevented the governor from getting a post-session bounce.

Approval ratings in the low 40s are outside the comfort zone for an incumbent, but I wouldn’t hit the panic button yet. SUSA has tended to measure Culver’s support at lower levels than some other pollsters, and most governors have seen their approval ratings slip during the past year, presumably because of the economy and the fiscal problems affecting almost every state.

I couldn’t find any breakdown of Culver’s support among Democrats, Republicans and independents either at this site or on Survey USA’s site. If anyone has those numbers, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I still think a large number of Democrats and independents who may not “approve” of Culver would choose him in a heartbeat over Chris Rants or Bob Vander Plaats, who are most committed to running for governor.

We’ll have a better idea of the governor’s re-election prospects when we see polling of head-to-head matchups with potential Republican challengers. Some of the Republicans considering this race would be stronger than others in terms of personal appeal or fundraising (though Culver will probably be able to outspend even the best GOP fundraisers).

Finally, keep in mind that despite ups and downs in the economy, Iowa hasn’t voted an incumbent governor out of office since 1962.

Share any thoughts about Culver’s chances or the GOP gubernatorial primary in this thread. Who has the potential to overcome Vander Plaats’ head start on campaigning? Can Rants reinvent himself as a likable politician? Who would benefit from a more crowded Republican field? Will the GOP primary be negative enough to do lasting damage to the eventual nominee?

UPDATE: Culver is bringing his campaign train to several stops in western Iowa tomorrow.

After “an emotional public hearing,” the Des Moines City Council voted 6-0 today to restore the original name of the Archie Brooks Community Center on the south side:

Brooks, a long-time councilman who was first elected in 1975, pleaded guilty of conspiracy and misappropriation of public money stemming from his role in a payroll scandal at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium, where he once served as board chairman. He was sentenced in January to a year and a day in prison and was ordered to repay $400,000 of the nearly $2 million lost in the scandal.

Some argue Brooks’ actions not only disgraced himself, but shamed the city, while others say decades of public service outweigh any of his admitted misdeeds.

The nice facility will once again be known as the Pioneer-Columbus Community Center.

City Council member Tom Vlassis abstained from today’s vote. He was a CIETC board member when crimes occurred at the agency and has admitted that he was a “rubber stamp” for what CIETC executives wanted.

Most Des Moines residents who contacted City Council members about the matter supported taking Brooks’ name off the community center. However, listening to those who stand by Brooks even now provides a good reminder of how well patronage can work for local political bosses.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. Bonus points if you can explain why the CIETC scandal, involving about $2 million, has generated more intense public outrage than the billions of taxpayer dollars squandered in wasteful, no-bid federal contracts every year.

I suspect this is mainly related to “agenda-setting” by local media that put CIETC on the front page for months. Perhaps some armchair psychologist in the Bleeding Heartland community knows of other reasons why certain crimes involving public money make people angrier than others.

I was struck by this passage in a Sunday Des Moines Register feature on Iowans in key posts at the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

[USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service administrator Michael] Michener declined to discuss the department’s strategy for promoting international acceptance of biotechnology, saying it’s still in the works. But he argues that the Obama administration can be more effective than the Bush administration, which went to the World Trade Organization to unsuccessfully break European resistance to the genetically engineered crops.

Vilsack is taking a lighter approach, Michener said, recounting a discussion the secretary had with his German counterpart.

Vilsack “made this very creative argument on how during the eight years of the Bush administration, the Europeans would lecture us on how we had to bring our citizens along and educate them on the science of climate change. He turned that around and said, ‘You know, you’ve got a similar responsibility on biotech'” Michener said.

That certainly is a “creative” analogy. Getting Americans on board with serious policies on climate change may be our only hope for avoiding a catastrophic global warming scenario. Gaining European acceptance for genetically-modified crops has no comparable global benefit (no, these crops won’t magically end world hunger).

But a more important point is after the jump.

The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Program (also known as “Cash for Clunkers”) will receive at least $1 billion in funding this year now that Congress has passed the $106 billion Iraq and Afghanistan war supplemental appropriations bill.  

After the jump I provide some legislative history and constructive criticism of Cash for Clunkers, which Representatives Bruce Braley of Iowa and Betty Sutton of Ohio championed as a reward for consumers who trade in inefficient old cars and trucks for new models.

Following up on yesterday’s post, I see that a brand-new New York Times/CBS nationwide poll shows widespread support for a real public health insurance option. The wording of the question was clear: “Would you favor or oppose the government’s offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance plans?”

Results: 72 percent of respondents favored the public option, including 87 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents, and 50 percent of Republicans.

Senator Chuck Grassley works overtime to snuff out a public option, urging President Obama to support a bipartisan bill in the Senate. But in the real world, a strong public option has bipartisan support. Even half of Republicans favor making a “government administered health insurance plan like Medicare” available to all Americans.

A public option would increase competition and give Americans more choices while driving down costs. A recent report found that one or two companies dominate the health insurance market in most parts of the country.

Obama will speak to ABC News about health care on Wednesday. I’ll be listening carefully to see whether he endorses a strong public option, which the House Democrats’ draft bill contains, or whether he remains open to a fake public option such as regional cooperatives or a “trigger”.

UPDATE: To be clear, the CBS/NYT poll is not an outlier. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week found, “Three in four people said a public [health insurance] plan is extremely or quite important.” A poll “bankrolled partly by previous opponents of health care reform” showed that “a majority (53%) strongly back the availability of a public plan, while another 30% ‘somewhat’ support it.”

I watch the Food Network sometimes while I’m exercising, and in the past two weeks I’ve seen Giada and the Barefoot Contessa make risotto on their shows. They both insisted that you “have” to put cheese in your risotto, and I think they added cream as well.

I couldn’t disagree more, so I’m re-posting one of my favorite food substitutions:

To make risotto with no milk or cream, I use a tip from the Moosewood Collective’s Low-Fat Favorites cookbook. In a food processor or blender, combine a cup or two of frozen corn kernels with whatever kind of stock you will use to cook the risotto. This creates a creamy consistency, but without being as heavy as risotto with cream. It’s good for vegans or anyone cutting back on calories.

I like to stir basil pesto into my risotto right before serving, but you can make that without cheese as well.

For the carnivores in the Bleeding Heartland community: on Thursday I cooked a flank steak (local and 100 percent grass-fed) using a recipe from Cynthia Lair’s article on grass-fed beef in the March-April 2009 issue of Mothering magazine. It comes from her book Feeding the Whole Family. You use a little of the dressing as a marinade; the rest is supposed to go on a noodle salad, but I saved it to pour over the leftover meat:

2 Tbsp toasted sesame oil, 3 Tbsp tamari, 3 Tbsp balsamic vinegar, 1 Tbsp maple syrup, 1 Tbsp hot-pepper oil.

It only took a minute to stir together the ingredients, and if you don’t eat meat, you could use this dressing for a vegetarian or vegan stir-fry or noodle salad.

What have you been eating or cooking lately? I am not a big salad eater for most of the year, but I am loving the fresh mixed greens I’ve been getting from One Step at a Time Gardens this month.

Health Care for America Now launched television commercials in 10 key states today. Here is the Iowa version (click here to view the others):

It’s a good ad. As Jason Rosenbaum writes,

This is the vision of a public health insurance option. Contrary to Republican talking points, nothing in the proposed plans for a public health insurance option would take away your choices and your relationship with your doctor. Nothing.

If you donate at least $10 to keep this ad on the air, Health Care for America Now will send you  a “high-quality, union-made t-shirt” (view the shirt here).

I’m also looking forward to seeing the commercials Blue America has in the works, which you can support by donating here.

Even if you can’t afford to make a donation, you can express your support for the public option by signing the petition at StandWithDrDean.com and sending an e-mail to your senators.

It wouldn’t hurt to contact your House representatives to let them know we need a public option. If the final bill out of the Senate ends up looking like the latest draft circulating in the Senate Finance Committee, we’re going to need House Democrats to vote this sham reform down.

UPDATE: According to slinkerwink at Daily Kos, the House Democrats’ draft health care bill does contain a public option. Thanks to members of the Progressive Caucus, including Iowa’s Dave Loebsack, for making this happen.

The Iowa Democratic Party announced yesterday that Dena Gleason will be field director for the 2009/2010 election cycle. From the IDP’s press release:

“Grassroots organizing has been the foundation of recent successful Democratic campaigns. Dena learned the value of these techniques while working for now President Barack Obama. She will be a key player in implementing a field strategy to mobilize the thousands of new Democratic registrants and volunteers recruited over the last two election cycles,” said Michael Kiernan, Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. “Dena brings with her cutting edge organizational techniques that were used so successfully to elect President Obama. I am excited to welcome Dena to the team as we prepare to re-elect Governor Culver and the Democratic Ticket.”  

Gleason, originally from southern Minnesota, worked for President Obama during the primary in Iowa, Kansas, Texas and Pennsylvania. She returned to Iowa in the general election to continue her work for President Obama. Most recently Dena worked for SEIU’s Change that Works where she mobilized health care supporters across Iowa.

I would like to congratulate Gleason and wish her every success in her new job. I have a few other wishes too:

May Culver and our legislative leaders remember that Gleason can’t wave a magic wand and deliver an effective GOTV campaign.

May Iowa leaders motivate newly-registered Democrats to vote in a non-presidential year by showing them tangible results from Democratic control of the legislature and governor’s chair. Many big problems in this state haven’t been addressed during the past three legislative sessions.

May legislative leaders excite key constituencies about volunteering next year–for instance, by passing a good labor bill and moving forward instead of backward on environmental protection. I currently hear a lot of “Why should I bother?” from experienced phone bankers and door knockers.

May Gleason’s field plan prioritize legislative districts we won and lost by narrow margins in 2008, so that Democrats are not left wondering what might have been parts of the state where Democratic turnout was weak last year.

May Gleason learn from the Obama campaign’s mistakes as well as its successes, so that field organizers and volunteers do more to educate new voters about filling out the whole ballot.

Please share your own welcoming wishes in this thread.

The White House and key Democratic senators, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, appear to be walking into a trap for the sake of bipartisan agreement on health care in the Senate.

There is growing support for a fake “public option,” as opposed to a government health insurance plan that would compete directly with private insurance companies.

If Congress passes this kind of deal and President Barack Obama signs it, we will get a enormously expensive non-solution to an enormous problem, and Democrats will pay the political price.

After the jump I’ll explain why political hacks as well as policy wonks should refuse the latest efforts to derail the public option.  

Iowa State Senator Jack Hatch was in Washington yesterday to chair the first meeting of a working group on health care. According to a White House press release,

State Legislators for Health Reform includes leaders from across the country who will educate their communities on the need for health reform this year.  The legislators will host public events, author opinion pieces in local publications, and use their established networks to organize constituents in support of health reform.

The Iowa Senate Democrats issued a statement from Hatch, who said the state legislators told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that “state-level health care reforms can only go so far.” He added that Sebelius

“stressed the need to expand choices in the health insurance market is essential.  Increased competition will lower costs and improve patient care.

“That’s why we all agreed that Americans must have a public health insurance option and now is the time to speak up.”

A public option that makes health insurance more accessible and affordable for adults is also likely to improve the health of children. Kevin Concannon of the Iowa Department of Human Services explained why in his contribution to the Reforming States Group’s May 2009 Healthy States/Healthy Nation report:

Ultimately, to achieve better health care access and better health status for children, the United States needs to cover parents as an essential, linked strategy for children. If parents have health insurance, they will better utilize the health care systems available to their children.

If you believe that real health care reform requires a public option for health insurance, you have two new and easy ways to do something about it. Neither will take more than a minute or two of your time.

Details are after the jump.

The weather was perfect on Sunday for visiting three farms near Woodward in central Iowa. Yesterday I picked up some grass-fed beef from Wallace Farms. Today I’m looking forward to my weekly box of vegetables from One Step at a Time Gardens. So, it seemed like a good time for another post on finding and eating local food.

For inspiration, check in on Rob Marqusee’s local food challenge. For the whole month of June, Rob is eating only food grown within 100 miles of the Woodbury County Courthouse (located in Sioux City, Iowa). Also, he is not eating any meat. As you can see from his journal (scroll down for the most recent updates), he’s eating well and feeling great despite the “sad moment” when he used up the last bit of his blue corn flour for pancakes.

Few of us are as committed or ambitious as Marqusee, but that doesn’t mean we can’t significantly change the way we eat. A few shifts in your attitude, shopping and cooking habits can make a big difference.

Although your nearby grocery store may sell some local fruits and vegetables in the summer, your best bet is to find a way to buy directly from farmers. This page lists 126 farmers markets and fruit stands in Iowa. Many other farmers sell fresh food in urban parking lots or along country roads.

There’s a fantastic resource for Iowans in the northeastern part of the state: the 2009 Buy Fresh Buy Local Food Directory, published by the Northern Iowa Food & Farm Partnership (NIFFP) at the University of Northern Iowa Center for Energy & Environmental Education. This guide covers grocers, farmers markets, local food producers and restaurants that serve local foods in Allamakee, Benton, Black Hawk, Bremer, Buchanan, Butler, Chickasaw, Fayette, Floyd, Grundy, Mitchell and Tama counties. From a press release:

“New additions to the directory this year include a chart that shows the best times to buy Iowa fruits and vegetables, information on how to buy locally grown meat, and a list of 2009 local food events,” says Andrea Geary, NIFFP coordinator.

You can download this guide for free by going to UNI’s Center for Energy & Environmental Education site, clicking on “Local Foods” and scrolling down to “Find Local Foods Near You.”

The Iowa Network for Community Agriculture has lots of good links here for consumers interested in local foods.

Diana Bauman has more local food links, along with recipes and updates on her garden, at A Little Bit of Spain in Iowa.

If you live within striking distance of the Des Moines area, consider joining the Iowa Food Cooperative.

Please share your own local food tips or stories in this thread.

Superintendent Nancy Sebring and a “facilities advisory committee” are recommending that the Des Moines school district save $2 million a year after 2011 by not extending a contract with Taylor Ohde Kitchell to manage construction projects for the district:

Currently, Taylor Ohde Kitchell has a $19.3 million contract to oversee construction projects through June 30, 2011.

“We have fewer dollars to spend, and we want as much of those to go into schools and impacting students and adults at those schools,” Sebring said.

This sensible recommendation is long overdue, and the school board should adopt it unanimously.

School board member Jonathan Narcisse is unpopular with his colleagues. But to his credit, he had been demanding a thorough review of the contract with Taylor Ohde Kitchell for years. Unfortunately, the majority of Des Moines school board members in a position to do something about this matter dismissed the concerns of those who criticized the contract, including Narcisse and Nan Stillians.

Last year attorney Nicholas Critelli investigated this matter and found that Taylor Ohde Kitchell didn’t comply with the law on competitive bidding for school projects. Critelli recommended that the Des Moines school board terminate the contract with the construction management firm and consider filing suit as well. However, the majority on the school board voted not to sue or even terminate the contract early.

As a parent of a child in the Des Moines public school system, I hate seeing big money continue to be spent on this contract, but it’s comforting to know that the current superintendent doesn’t plan to repeat her predecessor’s mistakes.

The Des Moines Register covered other recommendations from Sebring and the facilities committee here. If the school board approves the plan, Des Moines schools that weren’t renovated during the past decade with local-option sales tax money are likely to have some improvements funded by state sales tax revenue.

The official website for the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding initiative launched yesterday. It’s easy to navigate and includes, among other things:

*the rules for applying for I-JOBS money;

*details on how the bonding money will be directed to various types of infrastructure (transportation, disaster recovery and prevention, environment and water quality, telecommunications and renewable energy, and housing);

*a page where citizens can submit any question about the I-JOBS program;

*an interactive map on the main page which, as I-JOBS money starts to be awarded later this year, will allow users to click on any Iowa county to find out which projects affect that county’s residents.

You can receive updates on the I-JOBS program on Twitter as well.

The only thing I couldn’t find on the site is a link for reporting waste and abuse of I-JOBS money. If that’s not on the site, it should be added, and if it’s already there in an obscure location, it should be moved somewhere easier to find. The official page on the use of federal stimulus funds in Iowa has a link for reporting stimulus fraud right on the main page. Perhaps the I-JOBS webmaster could follow that example, or at least put a link for whistleblowers in the “helpful links” section.

Republicans will be looking for any slip-up in the use of I-JOBS money to bolster their misleading talking points about the infrastructure bonding initiative. It should be easy for Iowans to report any problems they see in their communities.

Chris Bowers wondered yesterday at Open Left why advocates of legislation to address global warming (the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act) aren’t playing hardball with Democrats who are watering down and threatening to block this bill.

By way of example, Bowers mentioned Congressman Leonard Boswell, who along with other Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee won’t vote for Waxman-Markey unless the bill is amended to benefit conventional farmers. Brad Johnson of the Think Progress “Wonk Room” provides excellent background information on what the House Agriculture Committee members want to do to Waxman-Markey.

But back to Bowers’ post. He points out that during last year’s Democratic primary for the third Congressional district, Boswell relied heavily on Al Gore’s endorsement. Boswell featured Gore’s support in direct-mail campaign fliers and radio advertising. Gore also signed a fundraising appeal for Boswell’s campaign, which included this passage:

Whether the issue is global warming or increasing the minimum wage, making college more affordable or expanding health care to every American, Leonard Boswell is on the frontlines of these issues.

Truthfully, Boswell has never been out in front on global warming. He voted for George Bush’s awful energy bill in 2005, filled with subsidies for fossil-fuel polluters. He came late to support the Safe Climate Act in the last Congress, signing on as a co-sponsor only in December 2007, after learning that Ed Fallon was planning a primary challenge.

But that’s water under the bridge. The much more serious problem is Boswell’s threat to vote down Waxman-Markey, which for all its flaws is still the best climate change bill ever to have a chance of passing Congress.

Al Gore has said global warming is one of the great moral issues of our time. It’s time for him and other prominent environmental advocates to lean on the House Democrats who are undermining Waxman-Markey.

On a related note, Ed and Lynn Fallon’s organization I’M for Iowa sent a press release on June 16 criticizing Boswell for “failing Iowans” on climate change legislation. In a separate e-mail to supporters, the Fallons challenged Boswell to “do what Al Gore would do” and support the American Clean Energy and Security Act. I’ve posted both the press release and the e-mail message from I’M for Iowa after the jump.

Members of Congress also need to hear from ordinary citizens who support a strong American Clean Energy and Security Act. Iowa Interfaith Power and Light makes it easy for you to write to your representative by clicking here. Other non-profit organizations working on this issue include Iowa Global Warming, the Iowa Renewable Energy Association, the Sierra Club Iowa chapter, and the Iowa Environmental Council.

UPDATE: Boswell’s spokesman Mark Daley responded with a statement explaining several areas of concern with Waxman-Markey despite Boswell’s “ardent support for climate change legislation.” (Let me know if you’ve seen evidence of this “ardent support” during the past 14 years.) I’ve posted the statement after the jump.

I’m not buying it for several reasons. Many people who have thoroughly studied this issue do not agree with the alleged impact this bill would have on farmers. The idea behind giving the USDA jurisdiction over the agriculture offsets is that the USDA will give farmers more offsets than the EPA would. If this is about getting more money to farmers, then I agree with Bowers that we’d be better off just handing farmers cash instead of credits.

If we want to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from current levels, then utilities that currently rely on fossil fuels may need to do more. Boswell says this is a bias against consumers in the midwest and that the allowances for utilities should be based on “historical emissions”. I am sorry that midwestern utility companies have not been more farsighted about getting away from fossil fuels, but I don’t understand how Boswell’s approach gets us to the solution we need, which is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Speaking more generally, no one claims the Waxman-Markey bill is ideal. I could argue that a carbon tax approach would be better than cap-and-trade, but a carbon tax isn’t politically viable, so here we are. I could complain about two dozen compromises that have already been made to satisfy this or that corporate or regional interest. Ultimately, the threat global warming poses to the planet is too great to let any one group derail the whole Waxman-Markey project, as Boswell is apparently willing to do if he doesn’t get his way about USDA jurisdiction. Someone who continually bragged about Al Gore’s endorsement during last year’s primary should be able to see the bigger picture here.

I heard there was a fantastic turnout over the weekend at Capital City Pridefest. If you were there, share your stories and impressions in this thread. We didn’t get downtown–instead, we hit the Blank Park Zoo on Saturday (loved the “Birdman” visiting show). We enjoyed “Sample Sunday” at three of my favorite farms the next day. As a bonus, I helped a turtle cross a country road–I was afraid it would get hit by a car if we left it to creep along.

After the jump I’ve posted details about a bunch of events coming up this week, including LGBT Pride events in Omaha, Iowa City and Davenport this weekend.

I want to highlight the fundraiser for Whiterock Conservancy in Coon Rapids on June 18. It’s a great cause, and whether or not you can come on Thursday, I highly recommend scheduling a visit if you’ve never seen the conservancy.

Democratic politicians and candidates, please let me know about any noteworthy events (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com), so I can include them on my weekly calendars. For instance, State Representative Elesha Gayman is having a fundraiser in Des Moines on June 16.

I learned recently that Bruce Stone is hosting a new liberal talk radio show in Des Moines; it airs weekdays from 6 to 7 pm on Macsworldlive.com. Here’s the link for tuning in live, and here is the link for the archive of programs.  

The White House is apparently not responding to Gordon Fischer’s requests for a meeting with an official in the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, Radio Iowa reported today, citing Fischer’s Facebook page.

Any citizen who asks several times to meet with a White House official should at the very least get an answer, even if it’s just, “I’m sorry, so-and-so’s schedule doesn’t permit that meeting.” Ideally, a junior staffer or receptionist should seek further information about why the citizen wants the meeting before rejecting the request.

The lack of common courtesy is even more baffling when you consider all the volunteer hours Fischer put in for Barack Obama’s campaign, before and after the Iowa caucuses. He deserves a meeting with this official, or some reply with a explanation for why his request is being denied.

LATE UDPATE: Fischer says he is permanently “retiring” from politics.

BENAWU has restarted a diary series tracking Democratic candidates in U.S. House districts across the country. So far there are no declared candidates in either of Iowa’s Republican-held districts.

If you know of any Democrats considering a run against Tom Latham (IA-04) or Steve King (IA-05), please post a comment in this thread, or in BENAWU’s thread, or send me an e-mail at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

Please also feel free to speculate here about who might become good candidates for us in these districts. I recognize that neither of these races are strong pickup opportunities for Democrats, but there are benefits to leaving no Republican unchallenged. Active Democratic candidates working different parts of the state should help boost turnout in our statehouse races, for instance.

I found some unintentional comedy in this AP story on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s one-on-one meetings with senators:

Sotomayor has managed to disarm even senators who came prepared not to like her. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, went in thinking “she would be aggressive and maybe even a little obnoxious.”

“I would classify her as kind of much friendlier … more reserved, less aggressive,” than he expected, Grassley told reporters later.

I wonder why Grassley thought Sotomayor would be “aggressive and maybe even a little obnoxious.” Would he expect that of any high-achieving Puerto Rican woman from New York, or only one who had been on the receiving end of a hatchet job in The New Republic? Or maybe he was taken in by right-wing commentators’ caricatures of Sotomayor.

Anyway, it’s safe to say that Sotomayor’s personality wasn’t the reason Grassley voted against her confirmation to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. He’ll have to keep trying to remember why he cast that vote in 1998.

By the way, the Democrat who’s running against Grassley next year, Bob Krause, has his campaign website up and is on Twitter @KrauseForIowa. He plans to campaign hard against Grassley’s opposition to universal health care with a public option.

In April the Iowa State Board of Education approved new nutrition standards:

A special task force drew up the standards, which set limits on calories, fat content, sugar and other nutritional measures. Carbonated beverages are banned. Caffeinated beverages and sports drinks are banned in elementary schools.

But the rules do not apply to food provided by school lunch or breakfast programs, items sold at concession stands or certain fundraisers or items provided by parents, teachers or others for class events.

Although I would have preferred tougher guidelines, these rules were a step in the right direction. To be more precise, they would have been a step in the right direction. After protests from some school officials, the State Board of Eduation “delayed most of the standards from going into effect until the 2010-11 school year.”

By that time, the regulations may have been relaxed, judging from what happened last week in the state legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee (unofficial motto: “Where good rules go to die”). The rest of the story is after the jump.

All government spending on infrastructure is not created equal. With good planning and accountability measures, the federal stimulus and state bonding packages approved this year by Congress and the Iowa legislature could turn out to be wise investments with long-term benefits. Without proper monitoring, we could squander lots of borrowed federal and state money.

Laura Dean of the Huffington Post drew my attention to the Project on Government Oversight‘s review of state websites on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the official name for the stimulus bill). They were specifically looking for resources for those who want to report fraud, waste and abuse in how federal stimulus funds are being used.

The findings are summarized here. Iowa did well as one of only seven states that “listed clear procedures for whistleblowers, such as what information to report, who to report to, and what will be done with that information.” (“Report stimulus fraud” is right on the front page of Iowa’s site, in the “featured links” section.)

However, there’s always room for improvement. The Project on Government Oversight applauded a few especially “whistleblower-friendly websites”:

Tied for first prize were Florida and Georgia, whose sites did an excellent job of providing clear procedures and protections for whistleblowers. Next up were Maine, Connecticut, and Texas, whose websites all did a good job of making the whistleblower’s job just a little bit easier.

Perhaps the webmaster for Iowa’s site on federal stimulus spending can make a few changes based on the Project on Government Oversight’s recommendations (pdf file).

As for state spending on infrastructure, the I-JOBS board will choose projects to receive funds soon. The criteria for selection are clear, and state officials understand the need for transparency in the process. Once the money has been allocated, the I-JOBS website should make it easy for citizens not only to track how the money is being spent, but to report any suspected fraud, waste or abuse.

The Democratic-controlled legislature failed to pass some important bills during the 2009 legislative session, including a tax reform package and all major agenda items for organized labor.

Since the fiasco that doomed the “prevailing wage” bill in February, I’ve thought that electing better Democrats to the state legislature is at least as important as electing more Democrats. With a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House, it’s ridiculous not to be able to find 51 votes for some of these bills.

According to a letter I received last weekend, Ed and Lynn Fallon of I’M for Iowa are already meeting with potential progressive challengers in some House districts. I’ve posted the full text of the letter after the jump. I share their disappointment with what the Democratic “trifecta” has accomplished since the 2006 elections.

The Fallons do not specify where they are recruiting candidates. The obvious targets are the six House Democrats who refused to support “prevailing wage.” Known in Iowa political circles as the “six-pack,” these incumbents also stood in the way of other labor bills. Of those six, Geri Huser and Dolores Mertz seem particularly likely targets, because they supported House Republican efforts to ban same-sex marriage in April. Marriage equality is one of I’M for Iowa’s priority issues.

Good opportunities for primary challengers include districts that are relatively safe for Democrats in the general election. That points to “six-pack” members Huser (House district 42), Brian Quirk (district 15) and Doris Kelley (district 20).

Challenging the rest of the group is somewhat more risky. McKinley Bailey (district 9), Larry Marek (district 89) and Dolores Mertz (district 8) represent marginal districts. In fact, first-termer Marek will probably be the most endangered Democratic House incumbent next year. Bailey beat back a strong challenge from Republicans to win a second term by a fairly healthy margin in 2008, but according to this report by Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock, some House Democrats have been “quietly concerned” that he might consider switching parties.

Mertz is a longtime incumbent in a very conservative district. In the unlikely event that a progressive challenger defeated her, Republicans would almost certainly pick up the seat. On the other hand, a smaller Democratic House caucus without Mertz would be an improvement over a larger caucus with Mertz, in my opinion. As chair of the House Agriculture Committee, she blocks any decent bill in sight, and she will be the Republicans’ biggest Democratic ally in the fight to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien.

Two big questions come to mind. First, will organized labor put money and/or foot soldiers into serious Democratic primary races? Earlier this year, Ken Sagar of the Iowa AFL-CIO didn’t rule out supporting competitors to Democrats who are unfriendly to labor.

Second, will the Iowa House Democratic leadership spend money or political capital to defend targeted incumbents? In 2008 the Iowa Democratic Party blocked Huser’s primary challenger from access to the voter database. I heard from multiple sources at the time that the House Democrats made that call. Huser returned her colleagues’ favor by not being a team player during the general election campaign, then refusing to support the labor bills mentioned above.

I look forward to reading your comments on whether it’s worth taking on any House Democratic incumbents next year, and if so, which ones. The Fallons’ letter laying out the case for primary challenges is after the jump.

The Republican Party opposed President Obama’s economic stimulus bill earlier this year, instead advocating a federal spending freeze in response to the recession. The misguided Republican proposal would have repeated Herbert Hoover’s big mistake, ignoring consensus among economists that deficits help end recessions.

The stimulus bill wasn’t perfect, but it contained some valuable provisions, notably aid to state governments, which can’t run deficits. While Governor Chet Culver imposed two rounds of cuts to fiscal year 2009 spending, federal stimulus funds helped lessen the severity of those cuts and avoid drastic reductions in the 2010 budget.

That’s good, because state budget cuts can further weaken an already weak economy, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained in this review of state fiscal stress across the country:

When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, eliminate or lower payments to businesses and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. In all of these circumstances, the companies and organizations that would have received government payments have less money to spend on salaries and supplies, and individuals who would have received salaries or benefits have less money for consumption. This directly removes demand from the economy. […]

Federal assistance can lessen the extent to which states take pro-cyclical actions that can further harm the economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recognizes this fact and includes substantial assistance for states. The amount of funding that will go to states to help them maintain current activities is approximately $135 billion to $140 billion – or about 40 percent of projected state deficits. Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding and a “Fiscal Stabilization Fund.” This funding will reduce the depth of state budget cuts and moderate state tax and fee increases.

Leave it to the Republicans to miss the point of stimulus aid to state governments, as I’ll discuss after the jump.

Columnist Clarence Page is speaking about civil marriage equality tonight, June 11, at 7 pm in the State Historical Museum Auditorium, 600 E. Locust Street in Des Moines. Unfortunately, I’m unable to attend the lecture, but I encourage anyone who hears Page speak to post a comment in this thread or your own diary about the event.

Those who can’t see Page tonight can still express their support for same-sex marriage rights. The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa has created an online petition for “Iowans of faith and goodwill who support marriage equality.” Excerpt:

As Iowans of faith and goodwill, clergy and lay, we support marriage equality.  From our deepest beliefs, we are compelled to stand for fairness in our common civic life. We oppose the use of sacred texts and religious traditions to deny equal protection and responsibility under the law for gay and lesbian couples.

From a religious perspective, marriage is about a couple entering into a holy covenant with their God and making a long-term commitment to share life’s joys and sorrows. Moreover, as many faith traditions affirm, where there is love, the sacred is in our midst.  This belief is the same for couples comprised of a man and a woman, two women, or two men.  As such, a marriage based in love and commitment must be honored and supported. […]

We affirm freedom of conscience in this matter. Marriage equality honors the religious convictions of those communities and clergy who officiate at, and bless, same-sex marriages. We recognize the state must not require clergy or religious traditions who disagree with same-sex marriage to officiate at, or bless, the ceremonies of gay and lesbian couples. The state must respect the convictions of all religious groups and individuals, while also allowing the fundamental right of marriage to be granted fairly to all people.

Click here to sign the Faithful Voices Pledge. Then pass the link along to like-minded friends.

I saw at Radio Iowa that President Barack Obama has nominated important early Iowa supporter John Norris to serve on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He’s well qualified for the job, as you’ll see from his official bio, which I’ve posted after the jump. Not only was Norris chairman of the Iowa Utilities Board from 2005 to 2009, he also handled different positions with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Organization of Midwest Independent System Operator States.

Norris has been Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s chief of staff since January, but he requested an appointment on the FERC in November, before Obama had named Vilsack to head the USDA. Although Norris has worked closely with Vilsack before as the governor’s chief of staff, the FERC position seems like a better fit for the more recent focus of Norris’s career.

I’m guessing that FERC commissioners also work less insane hours than chiefs of staff do. Norris and his wife Jackie Norris have three sons under the age of six. Jackie Norris recently was replaced as First Lady Michelle Obama’s chief of staff and will serve as senior adviser to the Corporation on National and Community Service.

LATE UPDATE: The Des Moines Register reported on June 21,

Norris said he always planned to move on from the USDA, because his real goal was a seat on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an appointment he now has in hand. He’s waiting for Senate confirmation for that position.

Norris said Vilsack asked him to take the USDA job, knowing it would be temporary. He “wanted someone who knew him and someone he trusted to get set up at USDA.”

Norris said he tried to set up a staff that would work together across their various areas of responsibility, avoiding turf wars. “This isn’t a speedboat. It’s a tanker and you have to slowly bring it around,” he said.

Newsweek published its annual list of the top 1,500 public high schools in the country this week. Iowa has six schools on the list: Cedar Rapids Washington (number 477), Cedar Rapids Kennedy (732), Iowa City West (846), Ames (923), West Des Moines Valley (1389), and Mid-Prairie of Wellman (1468).

A simple formula determined the rankings:

Public schools are ranked according to a ratio devised by Jay Mathews: the number of Advanced Placement, Intl. Baccalaureate and/or Cambridge tests taken by all students at a school in 2008 divided by the number of graduating seniors. All of the schools on the list have an index of at least 1.000; they are in the top 6 percent of public schools measured this way.

Note that this formula doesn’t tell you how well each school’s students did on the tests; it merely indicates how broad a segment of the school’s population is being prepared for college-level work. It also doesn’t give you any sense of other qualities in a high school, such as the range of extracurricular activities available.

Still, it’s important for high schools to prepare kids for college. Congratulations to the Iowa school districts that make advanced work available to a large percentage of students, especially in a small town like Wellman (population under 1,500 in Washington County).

Selective schools such as magnets and charters dominate the top of Newsweek’s list. While these are technically public schools, they are not comparable to schools that accept all students living within certain geographic boundaries. Most of the highest-ranked schools are in metropolitan areas larger than any Iowa city.

On the other hand, the fact that only one Iowa school cracked the top 500 on this list is a wake-up call to Iowans who consider our public schools the best in the country.

Speaking of Advanced Placement courses, Rachael Giertz had a good letter to the editor of the Des Moines Register a few weeks ago. It’s not still available on the Register’s website, but Giertz mentioned one downside for students who pile up AP credits in high school. Those credits help students finish college faster, but they may not count as courses passed on graduate school applications. Many graduate schools (rightly, in my opinion) don’t consider an AP course passed in high school equivalent to the same course taken in college.

A few thoughts came to mind when I read about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Caperton v. Massey this week. The case involved a West Virginia Supreme Court judge who refused to recuse himself from a trial, even though the chief executive of one of the litigants had spent $3 million to help the judge get elected. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court found that due process requires a judge to recuse himself if large campaign contributions create the appearance of partiality.

Like Scarecrow at the Oxdown Gazette, I found the hackery of Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion revealing.

Mostly I was shocked to learn from this New York Times article that judges are still elected in 39 states. It’s bad enough that money corrupts our elections for the legislative and executive branches. Judicial elections create opportunities for “legalized bribery” as well as incentives for judges to let public opinion unduly shape their interpretation of the law in high-profile cases.  

I agree with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board:

The fact that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw an ethical distinction between a bribe and a campaign contribution is a strong argument for why judges should not be elected. Period.

Iowa voters did away with judicial elections by approving an amendment to the state constitution in 1962. The governor appoints judges at all levels. The public has input through nominating commissions that evaluate potential appointees before forwarding a short list to the governor. In addition, judges can be removed either by the Iowa Supreme Court for disability or good cause, or by the voters through periodic retention elections.

We are fortunate that Iowans recognized the wisdom of scrapping judicial elections when the constitutional amendment was on the ballot. This page on the website of the American Judicature Society lists failed judicial reform efforts in numerous other states. As you can see, state legislators and voters have rejected similar proposals despite years of hard work by reform advocates.

Let this be a lesson for policy-makers at all levels to seize the chance to make big changes for the better, such as the currently favorable environment for health care reform. Opportunities to ditch deeply flawed but entrenched systems don’t come around every year, every election cycle or even every decade.

A bill to encourage consumers to purchase new and more fuel-efficient vehicles, co-sponsored by Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01), passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday by a wide margin of 298 to 119, with two members voting “present.”

The roll call shows 59 yes votes from Republicans, including Iowa’s Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05). Leonard Boswell (IA-03) also voted for the bill. Braley and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were not present for the roll call, but it’s safe to assume that Loebsack would have voted for it, since only a handful of the most conservative House Democrats voted no.

Braley said in a statement,

“The passage of Cash for Clunkers legislation will help boost our economy, save families money, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Braley said.  “Cash for Clunkers is a common-sense idea that can have a big impact on the economy, reducing emissions and saving American jobs by jumpstarting the auto industry.  I hope the passage of this bill today is a sign that this program will start benefiting families and American workers as soon as possible.”

In my opinion, this bill has much more potential to spur new car purchases and save jobs than it does to reduce emissions or our dependence on foreign oil. The increased fuel-efficiency requirements are quite modest (presumably because American car manufacturers have done a poor job of increasing fuel efficiency).

The original draft of the bill set more ambitious mileage requirements, but that changed during negotiations over the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill, to which this measure was attached:

The compromise also waters down the so-called cash-for-clunkers program*, which ostensibly encourages drivers to turn in their gas guzzlers in exchange for a federal subsidy on more fuel efficient models. Yet under the compromise proposal, the new fuel efficiencies are hardly dramatic. For example, drivers trading in trucks between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds would be eligible for a $3,500 voucher for purchasing the same-sized vehicle that’s more efficient by just 1 mile per gallon.

Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, said the program does much more to help struggling automakers sell large, unpopular models than it does to reduce greenhouse emissions.

“It’s a $4 billion giveaway to move gas guzzling vehicles that nobody wants off the lots,” Becker said.

After the jump I’ve posted the press release from Braley’s office and the information from an accompanying fact sheet on how this bill would work.

Governor Chet Culver’s re-election campaign is having a big fundraiser in Des Moines on June 11, and he told Iowa Politics.com recently that there will be more to come:

“We are gearing up,” Culver said. “You’ll see a lot of movement in terms of fundraising efforts. […].”

Asked if he had more than the $1.5 million in the bank than his campaign finance reports showed he had in January, Culver said: “We’re doing extremely well on fundraising. The response has been overwhelmingly supportive. It’s been very gratifying to know that so many of my supporters across the state continue to have complete confidence in my ability to lead this state.”

The Des Moines Register reported on June 3,

“I am going to be cranking up our political operation,” Culver said recently. “I’m excited about it. I love campaigning.”

Culver brought John Kirincich, a national policy and political aide, into the governor’s office as its chief operating officer. The former chief of staff in the U.S. House is expected to play a key role in Culver’s campaign. […]

He also plans to move his campaign operation by early July from the small office at 13th and Locust streets in Des Moines, occupied by his campaign finance and political staff now, into larger space closer to the Capitol.

“We’re going to have a very capable team,” Culver said. “I’m already assembling that team of talented political advisers. We’re going to be renting office space and raising money to run a very competitive re-election campaign.”

I’m all for hiring good staffers and giving them a decent office, but I hope the governor’s campaign will not spend too much money this year. In 2008 Culver’s campaign raised about $1 million but spent $550,000.

Some of the potential Republican challengers to Culver, such as former State Senator Jeff Lamberti, have the potential to raise large amounts of money. In addition, the Republican nominee may receive lots of out-of-state contributions from opponents of same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, organized labor interests probably will not give Culver as much money next year as they did during his 2006 campaign, because of lingering bad feelings over the governor’s veto of a collective-bargaining bill in 2008.

I still think the governor’s in a strong position going into his re-election campaign, but I would hate to see him burn through lots of money in 2009 and then face a Republican who’s able to match his spending.

Congressman Leonard Boswell still supports a health care reform bill containing a public option that would go into effect immediately, Boswell’s spokesman Mark Daley confirmed today via e-mail.

Background and details are after the jump.

Thomas Beaumont wrote about the Republican Party of Iowa’s revamped outreach strategy in Monday’s Des Moines Register. GOP chairman Matt Strawn is working on several fronts to bring the party back to power after three consecutive losses in Iowa gubernatorial elections and four consecutive elections in which Republicans lost seats in the Iowa House and Senate.

Strawn’s strategy consists of:

1) meeting with activists in numerous cities and towns

2) using social networking tools to spread the Republican message

3) building an organization with a more accurate database

After the jump I’ll discuss the strengths of this approach as well as its glaring flaw.

I have read a lot about gentle discipline, positive discipline, loving guidance or whatever you prefer to call non-violent methods of setting limits for children. Some of my favorites include the Sears Discipline Book, Lawrence Cohen’s Playful Parenting, Common-Sense Parenting of Toddlers and Pre-Schoolers by Bridget Barnes and Steven York, and Mary Sheedy Kurcinka’s Kids, Parents and Power Struggles.

Several more discipline books are on my list to read someday. At least half a dozen friends have recommended Becky Bailey’s Easy to Love, Difficult to Discipline. The website of Attachment Parenting International links to lots of other resources, some of them geared toward special-needs or high-need children.

However, I’ve found that some of the advice that helped me most with discipline issues didn’t come from books about discipline.  

Former Iowa GOP chairman Mike Mahaffey told CQ Politics that he is thinking about running against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. (Hat tip to WHO’s Dave Price.) Boswell barely defeated Mahaffey in his first bid for Congress in 1996.

CQ Politics highlights a big obstacle for Mahaffey if he runs:

A Boswell-Mahaffey rematch after a 14-year hiatus would also take place on quite different turf from their first race. The 3rd District in 1996 was located mainly in southern Iowa and was heavily rural; Boswell was aided in that race by the fact that he had spent his life outside of politics in farming. But redistricting, performed in a non-partisan procedure in Iowa, move the district’s boundaries north and east to take in the state capital of Des Moines, to which Boswell relocated from his rural hometown.

It will take a lot to convince me that Mahaffey, a small-town lawyer and part-time Poweshiek County attorney, poses a serious threat to Boswell in a district dominated by Polk County. So far IA-03 doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s list of competitive U.S. House districts.

Please post a comment if you know of any other Republicans thinking about getting in this race.

As you’ve probably heard, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in Des Moines Saturday to raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (minimum donation $2,500). She also tacked on a public event to discuss stimulus spending on education in Iowa.

The occasion gave us a glimpse of cutting-edge Republican strategery.

First, there was the obligatory cheap shot comment to the press:

Republican Party of Iowa Executive Director Jeff Boeyink said he’s surprised any Iowa congressional Democrats would want to appear with her. […]

“We don’t think her values are Iowa values,” Boeyink said.

True to state party chairman Matt Strawn’s promise to get the Republican message out using social media, the Iowa GOP highlighted the report with Boeyink’s quote on their Twitter feed.

Trouble is, Democrats still have a wide lead on the generic Congressional ballot. Since Iowa votes fairly closely to the national average, I’ll bet the Republican House leadership is more out of touch with Iowa values than Pelosi.

On Saturday, GOP chairman Strawn claimed Pelosi is for a “national energy tax”, which would have a “devastating impact” on farmers. Not surprisingly, this sound bite doesn’t reflect the content of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. (Click here for detailed bullet points on the draft bill to address climate change.) But who cares, if scare-mongering about tax hikes can lead Iowa Republicans out of the wilderness?

Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee paid for robocalls bashing Pelosi in the three Democratic-held Congressional districts in Iowa. Scroll to the bottom of this post at Iowa Defense Alliance to listen to all three versions of the call. Or, you can read the transcript that Blog for Iowa’s Trish Nelson posted after receiving the Loebsack version on Friday night. Its warnings about taxes, Pelosi’s “liberal agenda” and “San Francisco values” give it a “back to the future” flavor.

Wake me up when the Party of No comes up with some message that’s not 25 years old.

Senator Chuck Grassley didn’t take kindly to President Barack Obama’s weekly radio address about the need to accomplish health care reform this year. Early this morning, Grassley wrote on his Twitter feed,

Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us”time to deliver” on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND.

A little later, the senator Tweeted,

Pres Obama while u sightseeing in Paris u said ‘time to delivr on healthcare’ When you are a “hammer” u think evrything is NAIL I’m no NAIL

First of all, Obama recorded the weekly address before leaving for France. Second, it’s bizarre for Grassley to mock Obama’s “sightseeing in Paris,” as if that were the main purpose of his foreign visit. You can be sure that if Obama had not gone to France to commemorate the D-Day invasion, Republicans would be howling in protest.

Perhaps Grassley is venting because this week the president strongly affirmed his support for a public option in health care reform. Grassley has been working to forge a bipartisan consensus with no public option and published an op-ed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on Friday warning against that approach. (Chase Martyn’s take on Grassley’s piece is worth reading.)

Or maybe Grassley’s just a little touchy lately. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Des Moines Register correcting a mistake from the Register’s vox-pop feature, “My 2-cents’ worth”:

In the Register’s Your 2 Cents’ Worth feature May 4, “Disgusted 50010 Woman” said I pay $40 a month for health insurance. In fact, I pay $356 a month for Blue Cross insurance coverage, a plan that is available to federal employees. This differs from health plans for state government employees in Iowa, where no portion of the premium is paid by the employee. There’s no basis for the assertion in her comments.

Fair enough, senator. But you have to admit, you’ve got a pretty good deal going. A couple half your age who purchase their own Blue Cross insurance plan could easily pay two or three times as much in premiums for comprehensive coverage. Even a bare-bones policy covering primarily catastrophic care could cost individuals more than $356 a month, and they’d have to pay out of pocket for most routine medical expenses and prescription drugs.

Natasha Chart recently looked into her health insurance options as a single 34-year-old woman. If she can afford it, she’ll pay $200 to $300 a month for less coverage than what members of Congress receive. I encourage Senator Grassley to read her post.

UPDATE: Greg Sargent received clarification from Grassley’s office about what the senator meant to convey in the hammer/NAIL tweet:

Senator Grassley has been urging the President to let the legislative process work so that health care reform legislation restructuring 17 percent of America’s economy will reflect broad consensus and garner bipartisan support from as many as 80 senators.

Still pushing the pipe dream of a large bipartisan majority for health care reform.

Thursday’s White House statement announcing Jackie Norris’s replacement as chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama did not make clear whether Norris resigned or was pushed out. My hunch was that Norris wanted out. I considered it unlikely that the first lady would have wanted to fire Norris, who has proved herself to be highly capable of managing a complex organization.

On Friday an unnamed source told Politico,

The staff shakeup in the East Wing – with Jackie Norris out as chief of staff to Michelle Obama – came because Norris wasn’t enjoying the bureaucratic part of the job and wanted a change, a senior administration official said. […]

Norris, who bonded with Obama in Iowa as an organizational force in Barack Obama’s caucus victory, didn’t like the management and scheduling duties, and the intense social component of the job, the source said.

Who can blame her?

Norris will be a senior adviser to the Corporation for National and Community Service, which does good work. It’s a less prestigious title than chief of staff for the first lady, but I hope it will be a more fulfilling and enjoyable job.

LATE UPDATE: The “Civic Skinny” political gossip columnist for Des Moines’ alternative weekly Cityview heard a different story:

Iowa’s Jackie Norris apparently lost her job as chief of staff to Michelle Obama because she – Norris – turned out to be not much of a team player. If she didn’t get her way, insiders say, she pouted or fumed or cried or threatened to hold her breath until she turned blue or whatever. That was no surprise to political people who had worked with her when she was Iowa state director for the Obama campaign – or earlier when she worked on the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns in Iowa. But you don’t always get your way in a White House full of smart and strong-willed people. Further, she wasn’t part of the Chicago gang that runs things there – and her successor is.

I missed this story earlier in the week, but caught it at the Huffington Post on Friday:

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy sidestepped a court ruling this week, which had ordered it to consider whether the state should reclassify marijuana as having medical value. […]

The effort to reclassify marijuana in Iowa is led by the American Civil Liberties Union and local medical marijuana users. […]

The pharmacy board was fully informed by assistant attorney general and counsel to the board Scott Galenbeck of its job. “Judge Novak’s ruling states,” Galenbeck read to the board, “‘The board must determine whether the evidence presented by petitioner is sufficient to support a finding that marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States and does not lack accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.’ A couple sentences before that the judge stated if the board believes that evidence presented by petitioner was insufficient to support such a finding it should have stated such in its order.”

The board had previously rejected the ACLU effort. The civil liberties group appealed to the district court, setting up this week’s rematch.

Yet the Iowa board, instead of asking whether it has “accepted medical use in the United States,” asked whether Iowa should approve of it, which is not a question for the board but for the Iowa legislature.

A bill to legalize the medical use of marijuana was introduced in the Iowa Senate this year. More details about that are after the jump.

There’s a lot going on, especially this weekend in the Des Moines area. I’ve posted event details after the jump, but please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of anything I’ve left out.

If $2,500 is burning a hole in your wallet, you can meet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today (Saturday) at the fundraising luncheon for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at Roxanne Conlin’s house in Des Moines. Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell are co-hosting the event. I am not giving to the DCCC until they graduate Boswell from the “Frontline” program for vulnerable incumbents. He is not threatened in 2010 and should pay his DCCC dues like the other safe Democratic incumbents.

I was amused by the boilerplate Republican cheap shot regarding Pelosi’s visit:

Republican Party of Iowa Executive Director Jeff Boeyink said he’s surprised any Iowa congressional Democrats would want to appear with her. […]

“We don’t think her values are Iowa values,” Boeyink said.

I guess Boeyink hasn’t seen recent nationwide polls showing Democrats still have a wide lead on the generic Congressional ballot. Since Iowa votes fairly closely to the national average, I’ll bet Republican House leaders are less in line with Iowa values than Pelosi.

UPDATE: Blog for Iowa reports on a National Republican Congressional Committee robocall using Pelosi’s visit to bash Congressman Dave Loebsack. If you live in the first or third Congressional districts and have received a similar call attacking Braley and Boswell, please post a comment or send me an e-mail.

The White House announced on Thursday that Susan Sher will replace Jackie Norris as First Lady Michelle Obama’s chief of staff. Sher is a White House attorney and longtime friend of Obama’s from Chicago. Radio Iowa posted a press release containing statements from Michelle Obama, Sher and Norris.

Norris will head serve as senior adviser to the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps and other programs. She and her husband, John Norris, were among Barack Obama’s key early supporters in Iowa. Jackie Norris also directed Obama’s Iowa campaign during the general election. John Norris is now chief of staff for Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

I wish Jackie Norris the best of luck in her new position. The Corporation for National and Community Service has the potential to improve countless Americans’ lives.

UPDATE: An unnamed senior administration official told Politico that Norris wanted out of the job.

I got a chuckle out of Thomas Beaumont’s article in today’s Des Moines Register, “Reason for vote against judge still eludes Grassley”:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said Wednesday he still cannot recall why he opposed Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to a federal appeals court judgeship 11 years ago, even after searching the Congressional Record for answers. […]

“I want to know why myself. I probably want to know why more than you want to know why,” Grassley told reporters Wednesday when pressed to explain his past votes against Sotomayor.

“But we’ve looked in the record of the committee and the Congressional Record and there’s no statement by me. So, I don’t know why,” he added.

Grassley was one of three Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and 29 in the Senate to vote against Sotomayor’s confirmation to the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York.

Grassley’s memory lapse prompted me to search for reports on the reasons some Senate Republicans opposed Sotomayor in 1998. I could not find any articles discussing controversial decisions she had made as a district court judge.

I also learned that Sotomayor gave a speech in 1994 containing a statement about a “wise woman” that is similar to her 2001 remark that conservative commentators have been flogging. Greg Sargent reported that “though the 1994 speech was disclosed to Republican Senators as part of her confirmation for Court of Appeals in 1998, there’s no sign that anyone objected to it in any way.”

So, why did Grassley and 28 other Republican Senators vote against Sotomayor in 1998? My hunch is that the reason Grassley didn’t enter a speech into the Congressional Record at the time is the same reason I can’t find any reporting on the grounds for opposition to her: Republicans had no legitimate beef with her qualifications or her judicial rulings.

An article by Paul West of the Baltimore Sun supports my hypothesis:

President Bill Clinton’s 1997 nomination of Sotomayor to the nation’s second highest court was held up for a year by Senate Republican blocking tactics. At the time, analysts said that Republicans did not want her confirmation to go forward because it would put her in line for a Supreme Court seat.

That’s the kind of reason I’d want to forget too if I were Grassley.

Senate Republicans used similar blocking tactics against many of Clinton’s nominees, hoping to run out the clock on his presidency. They later complained about Democratic “obstruction” of judicial appointments, but at least Democrats gave reasons for opposing the worst George W. Bush nominees (for instance, judicial philosophy or specific decisions as lower-court judges).

To his credit, Grassley told reporters on yesterday’s call that he is going into Judge Sotomayor’s upcoming confirmation hearings with an open mind. Not that it matters, because Senate Republicans already know that they don’t have the votes to block her elevation to the Supreme Court.

The I-JOBS board met for the first time on June 3. According to this news release,

The I-Jobs Board is specifically tasked with awarding approximately $165 million of funds from the I-Jobs program. Of  that amount, $46.5 million is earmarked for projects in Linn County, Cedar Rapids, Palo, Elkader and Charles City. The  remaining $118.5 million will be available on a competitive basis to support the construction of projects relating to  disaster relief, mitigation and local infrastructure.

The board approved this tentative timetable for allocating the money. The key date is August 3, when applications are due. As Governor Chet Culver’s deputy chief of staff Phil Roeder told Iowa Independent,

“Everyone in the administration understands that with I-JOBS, time is of the essence,” Roeder said. “In order to have impact on the economy, we have to move quickly.”

I was pleased to see Roeder highlight the importance of transparency for the I-JOBS program. The administration is creating a website that supposedly will allow the public to track how money is being spent. I strongly agree with Kathleen Richardson, director of Iowa Freedom of Information Council, who emphasized the need for the I-JOBS board to follow open meetings rules as well.

Citizens can find draft rules for the I-JOBS program here. You can send comments about these rules to ijobs@iowa.gov.

Meanwhile, Iowa Republicans continue to bring out their misleading talking points, such as this Twitter comment from IowaGOP,

Culver keeps pumping I-JOBS (1st mtg. today.) But how will it help create and keep long-term jobs in IA? Still haven’t heard.

How the program will create jobs should be obvious when you read which kinds of construction projects are eligible for the money (such as roads, bridges, sewers, repairing flood-damaged structures). As for how these public works will keep jobs in Iowa, what part of “quality of life” do Republicans not understand? Also, expanding broadband access in rural areas will allow more Iowans to operate internet-based businesses.

Even Iowa State Economics Professor David Swenson, whom Republicans like to quote on this subject, estimates that the I-JOBS program will create around 4,050 jobs.

Funny, Iowa Republicans don’t acknowledge Swenson’s insight when it comes to ending federal deductibility, which he considers an “archaic holdover” in our state’s tax system. But that’s a point for another post.

Iowa is now one of six states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Congratulations to everyone who worked to bring marriage equality to New Hampshire. Today the state House passed a revised bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and Governor John Lynch signed it immediately. More details are all over the web, including at Pam’s House Blend and Blue Hampshire.

Share your thoughts in this thread, and remember, Iowa got there first! Actually, “first” in the sense of third, after Massachusetts and Connecticut–but the important thing is, before New Hampshire!

The White House announced today that President Barack Obama will nominated former Republican Congressman Jim Leach to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities. From the press release:

Jim Leach served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for the state of Iowa for 30 years. He founded and co-chaired the Congressional Humanities Caucus, which is dedicated to advocating on behalf of the humanities in the House of Representatives and to raising the profile of humanities in the United States. The Caucus worked to promote and preserve humanities programs and commissions such as the Historical Publications and Records Commission. Mr. Leach and his co-founder, Rep. David Price, received the Sidney R. Yates Award for Distinguished Public Service to the Humanities from the National Humanities Alliance in 2005. During his tenure in Congress, Mr. Leach also served as Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services (1995-2001), a senior member of the House Committee on International Relations and Chairman of the Committee’s Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs (2001-2006). In addition, Mr. Leach is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Vice Chairman of the Century Foundation’s Board of Trustees and has served on the boards of the Social Sciences Research Council, ProPublica, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Kettering Foundation. Since leaving Congress in 2007, he has taught at Princeton University and served as the interim director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Leach was one of the most prominent Republicans to endorse Obama for president last year. He was rumored to be under consideration for a diplomatic position when Obama sent him to speak with foreign leaders in Washington shortly after the presidential election. The National Endowment for the Humanities seems like a perfect fit for Leach.

Congressman Dave Loebsack, who defeated Leach in the 2006 election, released this statement today:

“As a native son of Iowa, Jim Leach has served Iowa proudly and with dignity for over three decades, and I applaud President Obama’s choice. The National Endowment for the Humanities makes critical contributions to the rich cultural tapestry of our country, and with Jim Leach’s experience, expertise, and dedication, I have no doubt that our nation’s museums, libraries, and cultural institutions will continue to grow and excel.”

Loebsack and Leach have set a fantastic example for politicians everywhere by speaking about each other with respect, both during and since the 2006 campaign.

Congressman Bruce Braley released this statement:

“President Obama couldn’t have made a better choice than Jim Leach to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities.  There are few individuals as qualified or as well-suited for this position as he is.  I’m proud that Davenport’s own Jim Leach will be continuing to serve the public in this capacity after his long and distinguished career representing the citizens of eastern Iowa.”

I was raised by a Rockefeller Republican who believed in funding the arts and humanities and cringed when well-known Republicans demonized the National Endowment for the Arts in the 1980s and 1990s. Leach’s commitment to supporting the humanities will serve him well in his new job.  

When Governor Chet Culver took final action on the last two dozen bills from the 2009 legislative session, my biggest disappointment was his decision to sign Senate File 433, a bill that “eliminates a broad range of fines against Iowa nursing homes that fail to meet minimum health and safety standards.”

Governors rarely veto bills that pass out of the state legislature unanimously, as this one did. However, when Culver didn’t sign Senate File 433 right away, I hoped he was seriously considering the advice of the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs and the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals. Both of those state agencies opposed the bill.

Instead of listening to the public officials who have the most in-depth knowledge of nursing home regulations and violations, Culver sided with a corporate interest group:

Former state legislator John Tapscott, who now advocates for Iowa seniors, said the new law is an example of what the nursing home industry can buy with its campaign contributions.

“It only proves that our legislative leaders and governor are willing to sell out the most vulnerable of our citizens – the sick and elderly residing in nursing homes – for a few thousand campaign dollars,” he said.

Click “there’s more” to read about the substance of this bill and the winning strategy of the Iowa Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes. I couldn’t have written this post without an outstanding series of reports by Clark Kauffman of the Des Moines Register last November (see also here and here).

I’m grateful that the Iowa Independent bloggers listen to our local Rush Limbaugh clones so I don’t have to. If anything newsworthy comes out of some right-wing radio show, I can read about it online.  

I learned recently that no matter how crazy Congressman Steve King seems, there are some conservatives who think he should be further outside the mainstream.

After the jump I have a few thoughts on the spat between King and wingnut Bill Salier, best known for almost beating establishment favorite Greg Ganske in the 2002 Republican Senate primary.

Iowa Workforce Development is fining Henry’s Turkey Service $900,000 for labor law violations, the Des Moines Register reported on May 29. The fine stems from 9,000 counts of making improper deductions from paychecks, not paying the minimum wage, and not providing pay stubs to the mentally disabled workers who lived in a decrepit bunkhouse in Atalissa. (The violations affected at least 30 workers during every pay period in 2007 and 2008.)

Since various agencies are conducting other investigations into the company’s treatment of its workers, I expect this fine will be the first of many levied against Henry’s Turkey Service. However, an attorney for the parent company of Henry’s Turkey Service told the Des Moines Register that the company will challenge Iowa Workforce Development’s proposal. It will be some time before any fines are paid.

Click here for the archive of Des Moines Register reports on this appalling story.

Senator John Ensign of Nevada is coming to northwest Iowa today for stops at Trans Ova Genetics in Sioux Center and the famous ice cream shop in Le Mars before he delivers a speech in Sioux City.

The American Future Fund invited Ensign as part of a lecture series, and American Future Fund spokesman Tim Albrecht spoke to Radio Iowa about him:

Albrecht describes the 51-year-old Ensign as a “strong” conservative.

“I think that Senator Ensign will be able to introduce himself to a group of active conservatives who are thirsty for a new voice, a new person, to really pick up the banner and carry it on their behalf,” Albrecht says.

Are conservatives “thirsty for a new voice,” as in someone who hasn’t already run for president? The Republican Party has a history of nominating presidential candidates on their second or third try: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain.

Ensign looks like a fairly generic Republican to me. He would need to do something to distinguish himself in the next few years to avoid becoming the Sam Brownback or Tommy Thompson of 2012.

UPDATE: Ensign gave Iowa Politics an interview:

“I’m not running for president,” said Ensign, who’s chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “What I’m doing is raising my profile. I believe we need new voices and fresh voices in the Republican Party who can articulate a message of our core Republican principles.”

More thoughts on likely Republican presidential candidates are after the jump.

Iowa Republicans are bashing Governor Chet Culver for appointing Kate Gronstal to the I-JOBS board, which will decide how to spend $118.5 million of the $830 million in I-JOBS money. Kate Gronstal is the daughter of Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal.

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn slammed what he called “political nepotism”:

“I’m sure there are thousands of qualified engineers in this state that don’t raise the red flag that someone who is an immediate family member of a legislator in charge of ramming this through the Senate,” Strawn said.

Since Culver “declined to respond” to Strawn’s allegation, I want to lay out the case for putting Kate Gronstal on this board.

1. She is qualified for the position as a professionally trained structural engineer. It’s not as if the governor put a well-connected person with no relevant experience on the board.

2. By all accounts she is smart and highly capable. People born into political families have certain doors opened for them. I’m sure Marcus Branstad had a leg up on the competition when he was starting his career in Iowa Republican circles. Who cares as long as he is good at what he does?

3. Kate Gronstal’s presence on the board will subject its award process to a higher level of scrutiny. That’s good.

I supported the large infrastructure bonding package because Iowa’s debt load is not that high, interest rates are relatively low, and public works projects can improve the quality of life in the long term while creating jobs in the short term.

However, it is critically important that the I-JOBS money be spent wisely to benefit whole communities, not just a few wealthy developers.

Iowa Republicans never liked Culver’s bonding plan, and they’ll be watching for any mistakes that bolster their misleading talking points. With Kate Gronstal on the I-JOBS board, Republicans will use any unworthy project approved to highlight alleged Democratic nepotism and mismanagement.

I-JOBS has the potential to make Iowa a better place to live. Governor Culver has appointed a qualified board to administer the program. All the board members, and especially Kate Gronstal, have strong incentives to demonstrate that they can handle this responsibility.

After the jump I’ve posted the governor’s press release containing bios for all members of the I-JOBS Board and the Accountability And Transparency Board, which will “make sure Iowa meets or exceeds the accountability and transparency requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (also known as the federal economic stimulus bill).

An assailant shot and killed Dr. George Tiller at a church in Wichita, Kansas this morning. Tiller has long been demonized by the anti-choice movement because he performs late-term abortions. He was shot in 1993 and has faced numerous threats, and his clinic has been bombed and vandalized. The Wichita Eagle has background here and is updating the story. (Note: police arrested a 51-year-old male suspect about three hours after the shooting.)

Daily Kos user wiscmass discusses other violent attacks against abortion providers here. As wiscmass notes, every murder or assault is a deterrent to medical professionals considering whether to provide abortion services. By intimidating doctors, anti-choice activists can restrict access to abortion where legal and political methods have failed. I would add that even non-violent methods of intimidation can be effective. For instance, the Sioux City medical community has made clear hospital privileges will be denied to any local doctor who performs abortions at Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa’s clinic there.

Tiller was not only serving women in Kansas. Many states, including Iowa, lack any clinic where women with a compelling medical reason can get a late-term abortion. (Contrary to propaganda you may have heard, healthy women with healthy pregnancies can’t just walk into Tiller’s clinic and get an abortion in the third trimester.) I have no idea where these women will go now.

Incidentally, Tiller’s donations to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her political action committee prompted 31 Senate Republicans to vote against confirming Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary in April.

Cecile Richards, leader of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told a story about Sebelius during a recent speech at Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa’s 75th anniversary celebration. Richards recalled a noisy group of protesters with graphic signs outside a Planned Parenthood event in Kansas. Everyone who attended the event, including then-Governor Sebelius, had to walk through the group of protesters. During her speech that night, Sebelius said she was glad everyone had to face those protesters, because it gave them a sense of what women in Kansas go through every day just trying to access reproductive health care.

Unfortunately, Tiller’s murder reminds us that standing up for reproductive rights in this country sometimes means putting your life in danger. I echo wiscmass in urging pro-choice Americans to support the organizations that are on the front lines in this battle.

Several Bleeding Heartland readers living in different Iowa counties have received robocalls in the past few days featuring Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King. Like the calls King recorded in early April, these calls are paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.

I have not heard the call, but from what others have told me, it sounds like this fake survey is designed to raise money, identify and mobilize supporters. (In contrast, a “push-poll” usually seeks to spread information that would change people’s minds about an issue or candidate.) The details are after the jump.

If all you knew about 2nd Circuit U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor came from conservative commentators, you would think Barack Obama had nominated a far-left reverse racist for the Supreme Court. A typically unhinged assessment by Iowa’s own Ted Sporer, chairman of the Polk County Republican Party, is titled “The Supreme Court pick: Justice denied, racism and sexism exalted.” Like most conservatives who are freaking out, Sporer is reacting to one quotation from a speech Sotomayor gave in 2001:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Conservative commentator Rod Dreher read the whole speech and concluded on Wednesday, “seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling.” However, the right-wing noise machine continues to sound the alarm about Sotomayor’s alleged radical, racist agenda.

You won’t be surprised to learn that people who have examined her judicial record (as opposed to one sentence from one speech) have reached substantially different conclusions. Some reality-based links are after the jump.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack took a step toward undoing bad Bush administration policy on Thursday:

No logging or road project on tens of millions of forested acres will proceed without personal approval by the Agriculture Department’s secretary for at least a year while the Obama administration decides how to handle a controversial Clinton-era roadless rule, officials said today.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is signing a directive giving himself sole power to make decisions for one year on building roads and harvesting timber on nearly all of the areas covered by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The directive can be renewed for an additional year, the department said. It covers roadless areas in Alaska but will not apply to those in Idaho, which wrote its own roadless area plan.

“This interim directive will provide consistency and clarity that will help protect our national forests until a long-term roadless policy reflecting President Obama’s commitment is developed,” Vilsack said in a statement.

Environmental-minded Democrats and non-profit organizations welcomed the news. The Washington Post and New York Times have more detail on what Vilsack’s directive means.

Many people don’t realize that the U.S. Forest Service is under the USDA’s jurisdiction. (This brief history explains that the original purpose of the service was “to provide quality water and timber for the Nation’s benefit.”) Vilsack had little prior experience in this area, because Iowa is not one of the 44 states containing a national forest and has has only a few state forests. (Click here for more information about where the 142 U.S. national forests are located.)

Although Vilsack’s latest directive will not affect Iowa directly, Iowans should be proud of our former governor’s step toward protecting some of our country’s most pristine natural areas.

By the way, the Iowa Democratic Party is honoring Secretary Vilsack, former First Lady Christie Vilsack and Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson at its Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony on June 27. Click here to reserve tickets. I’m looking forward to the event.

I got a double-dose of Dr. Howard Dean in Des Moines yesterday at a health care reform event and a reception to honor Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. (I’ll write up the health care forum later today.)

The reception was organized by One Iowa, the leading LGBT advocacy group in the state. Dean spoke about his experience as governor of Vermont after signing a bill granting legal recognition to same-sex couples (civil unions) in April 2000. He remarked that supporting civil unions has now become the “compromise position” on the issue, but it wasn’t that way nine years ago. He wore a bullet-proof vest for a time after signing the bill and didn’t visit certain conservative areas of the state much during that year’s re-election campaign. Dean was barely re-elected in 2000 with 50.5 percent of the vote after winning his four previous gubernatorial elections easily.

Think about that. Less than a decade ago in a relatively progressive state, the governor was wearing a bullet-proof vest after standing up for civil unions. I don’t mean to downplay the political courage shown by Iowa leaders who have respected and praised the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling, because I know marriage equality is still a controversial and emotional issue. But it’s striking how much more accepting people are of legal recognition for committed gay and lesbian couples.

In an interview with Radio Iowa’s O.Kay Henderson yesterday, Dean said of marriage equality,

“This has just become a non-issue in states where there’s a lot of neighborliness,” Dean said. “Because even if people don’t think, for religious reasons, that gay people ought to be able to get married, they’re also respectful of their neighbors who may have a gay person in their family.”

Radio Iowa’s headline on this story is “Dean predicts gay marriage will be a ‘non-issue’ in 2010.” That makes him seem much more complacent than he sounded to me at the One Iowa reception. Dean predicted that marriage equality will gain wide acceptance, but he reminded the audience of that old political saying, “Never forget who your friends are.” He urged them to support the Democrats who have blocked a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state legislature, warning that if these leaders lose in the next election, “it sets back the movement.”  

In the context of not forgetting your friends, Dean mentioned that his presidential campaign could never have gotten off the ground without the help of the LGBT community. He estimated that in the early months, about 75 percent of the money his campaign raised came from LGBT donors who remembered that he stood with them on civil unions. That early money helped him hire a few staffers and open a few offices, laying the ground for his surge in support during the summer of 2003.

Speaking more broadly, Dean gave credit to all gays and lesbians over the years who have “stood up and said who you are,” because it becomes much harder to say and think bad things about a group when you know the group includes your friends and neighbors. (Dean made a similar point in his Radio Iowa interview.)

In their remarks to the One Iowa reception, Gronstal and Murphy both gave credit to the “six brave couples” who put their names on the line in filing the Varnum v Brien lawsuit against Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. Gronstal added that in holding the line against efforts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, he and Murphy “didn’t do this for the LGBT community. We did it for everyone.”

UPDATE: Iowa Independent has more on last night’s event.

SECOND UPDATE: In the comments at MyDD, Texas Dem notes that Dean’s re-election in 2000 was less close than it seems, because his Republican rival only got about 38 percent, with a Progressive candidate winning the remaining 9.5 percent. Still, that was a much narrower margin than Dean’s other gubernatorial election victories.  

Governor Chet Culver signed more than two dozen bills on May 26, the last day he was able to take action on legislation approved during the 2009 session. Two of the bills made up the last piece of the I-JOBS program, four more are aimed at helping veterans and Iowans on active duty, and the rest cover a wide range of issues.

Some good news for water quality was buried in the long list of bills and veto messages signed on Tuesday. For the details, follow me after the jump.

The customer is always right.

As Ben Smith reported at Politico last week, several large labor unions are questioning investment fund managers about their stance on the Employee Free Choice Act:

“Has your company made any public statements in support or opposition to EFCA?” asks one of nine pointed questions in a polite, detailed four-page questionnaire.

“If ‘Yes,’ please explain.”

The detailed questionnaire has three parts. The first asks about fund managers’ public positions, lobbying and political contributions. The second asks managers to “disclose any relationships during the past five years between your company and any organization(s) opposing the passage” of EFCA. The form lists 14 organizations, from anti-EFCA organizations like the Workforce Fairness Institute to trade groups that oppose it, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Roundtable.

Here’s a pdf file of the questionnaire. More on the whining after the jump.

Conservative blogger Craig Robinson argued last week that “Iowa Republicans Have Plenty of Opportunity in the State Senate” in 2010. The GOP has almost nowhere to go but up. Republicans currently hold 18 of the 50 seats in the Iowa Senate, fewer than at any previous time in this state’s history. After making gains in the last four general elections, Democrats now hold 19 of the 25 Iowa Senate seats that will be on the ballot in 2010. Also, several Democratic incumbents are in their first term, having won their seats during the wave election of 2006.

To win back the upper chamber, Republicans would need a net gain of seven seats in 2010, and Robinson lists the seven districts where he sees the best chances for the GOP.

I generally agree with John Deeth’s view that only a few Senate districts are strong pickup opportunities for Republicans next year. Winning back the upper chamber will take the GOP at least two cycles, with redistricting likely to create who knows how many open or winnable seats in 2012.

After the jump I’ll examine the seven Iowa Senate districts Robinson views as worthwhile targets as well as one Republican-held district that Democrats should be able to pick up. Here is a map (pdf file) of the current Iowa Senate districts.

I was so sorry to hear today’s news out of California. While I have no doubt that a future referendum will reverse Prop 8, that process will take years and resources that could have been spent organizing in other states.

Couples left in legal limbo should be aware that the state of Iowa recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who tied the knot in California last year. Moving halfway across the country clearly won’t be an option for everyone, but Iowa has a low cost of living and a good quality of life (more affordable housing, relatively low rates of crime and unemployment, short commutes, and decent public schools in many communities).

Of course, couples from California or anywhere else can still come to Iowa to get married.

Since the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect on April 27, hundreds of same-sex couples have been married here. More than half of Iowa’s 99 counties have issued at least one marriage license to a same-sex couple. Despite an extensive petition drive to pressure county recorders, no county recorder has refused to issue a marriage license to a couple seeking one.

In my opinion, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court ruling will not get anywhere. I explain why after the jump.

The big news of the day is that President Barack Obama nominated U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, she would be the third woman to serve on the high court and the first Hispanic justice of either gender.

Sotomayor reportedly sealed the deal during her interview with the president last Thursday.

Deoliver47 has more background and video clips in this post.

Senate Republicans will try to drag out the confirmation process, but there will be no long-term vacancy on the high court. Justice David Souter has made clear that he will retire once his replacement is confirmed.

I don’t know a lot about Sotomayor, but I look forward to learning more. She has the qualities I wanted to see in a Supreme Court nominee, even if she is not as progressive as I would like. Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog previewed arguments for and against her nomination. Excerpt:

Objectively, her qualifications are overwhelming from the perspective of ordinary Americans.  She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge.  No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience.

On the other hand, this criminal defense attorney who has argued cases before her court isn’t too impressed.

On principle, I am glad that a hit piece on Sotomayor filled with anonymous quotes did not derail her nomination. More on that hit piece is here.

Before I open the floor for comments, here’s some Supreme Court-related humor from The Onion.

What do you think of Obama’s choice?

UPDATE: Greg Sargent points out that “Seven Republicans currently in the Senate voted for the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor in 1998 as U.S. Circuit Court judge[…].” That’s not counting Arlen Specter, who also voted to confirm her in 1998 but is no longer a Republican.

SECOND UPDATE: Sports fans may remember that as a U.S. district court judge, Sotomayor ended the baseball strike in 1995.

THIRD UPDATE: Senator Chuck Grassley released this statement:

“A lifetime appointment requires a thorough vetting, and I expect Judge Sotomayor to receive fair and deliberative consideration.  The United States Senate has a responsibility to carefully review nominees to the Supreme Court.   The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences.  We need to ask tough questions to learn how this individual views the role of a Supreme Court justice.  The last 25 years of Senate review of nominees has been entirely different than the first 200 years, and today the Senate can’t just be a rubber stamp for President Obama’s nominees.”

Grassley is incorrect to imply that the Senate has been a rubber stamp of Supreme Court nominees for most of this country’s history. During the 19th century, the Senate rejected approximately one fourth of the presidential nominees for this office.

Here’s a list of failed nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Des Moines Register profiled Dave Murphy of Food Democracy Now in Monday’s edition. The article mentioned the incredible success of the petition signed by more than 94,000 Americans. Two of the “sustainable dozen” candidates whom Food Democracy Now recommended for U.S. Department of Agriculture posts now work for the department. Drake Law Professor Neil Hamilton, also on the sustainable dozen list, is an “informal adviser” to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

You should read the whole Des Moines Register article. The most important passage is about how Murphy makes the case for changing agriculture policies:

[Murphy] pointed to a survey from the Organic Trade Association that showed that the U.S. sales of organic food grew nearly 16 percent between 2007 and 2008 to reach $22.9 billion. Organic foods now account for about 3.5 percent of all U.S. food sales.

For Murphy, sustainable farming is about more than the food.

He sees it as returning to a model of production that is better for the environment and one in which farmers can start without taking on deep debt to finance heavy equipment.

He said the agricultural policies today are stacked against farmers of small- to mid-sized farms in favor of larger operations. […]

Murphy stressed that he isn’t against large farm operations. He said sustainable practices can help farms of all sizes.

But Murphy does believe that the playing field ought to be leveled, for the benefit not just for smaller farms but for rural areas in general.

“That’s the best way to improve rural economies,” he said. “The more farmers there are on the land, the better it is for rural economies.”

Health and environmental concerns sparked my interest in buying local food produced sustainably, but Murphy is wise to connect the dots between agriculture policies and the economic future of rural areas. For more along those lines, read the feature on Murphy and Food Democracy Now from the Washington Post in March.

Speaking of Iowans who are incredibly committed to helping small and medium-sized farms thrive, Woodbury County’s rural economic development director Rob Marqusee has pledged to “eat only food grown within 100 miles of the Woodbury County Courthouse for the entire month of June 09 (and no meat will be allowed in the diet).” Keep an eye on Marqusee’s Woodbury Organics site next month, because he’ll be blogging about his food challenge.

Those interested in Murphy’s work should go read more on the Food Democracy Now site. Click here for past Bleeding Heartland posts that referenced Food Democracy Now’s work. Jill Richardson wrote more here about Murphy’s activist roots and the role he played during the Iowa caucus campaign.

If organic farmer Francis Thicke decides to run for Iowa secretary of agriculture in 2010, expanding local food networks will be a major theme of his campaign.