The National Republican Congressional Committee launched robocalls yesterday slamming 10 U.S. House Democrats for not supporting a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Democrats Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) are two of the targets.

Defending his veto of a tax measure designed to help lower and middle-income working Iowans, Governor Terry Branstad hinted yesterday that he won’t allow any expansion of that tax credit unless legislators approve corporate income and property tax reform costing more than twenty times as much.

Last week’s deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling in exchange for long-term deficit reduction wasn’t what the doctor ordered to reassure investors. Stock markets around the world dropped sharply today, reflecting fears about lousy economic prospects in the U.S. and abroad.  

Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks on Friday reversed plans to eliminate the top administrator’s position at the Division of Tobacco Use Prevention and Control. Her comments came several hours after Democratic State Senator Jack Hatch predicted “legal action” to challenge the way IDPH downsized its smoking prevention programs.

Although Republicans and some Democrats portray the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an over-zealous pollution controller, the agency has repeatedly delayed or declined to issue pollution regulations opposed by major industries. News of the latest example broke late last week, when clean water advocates announced that the EPA will not develop and enforce a plan to clean up the “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

The big story of the weekend is Standard & Poor’s downgrading U.S. sovereign debt. Political reaction to that news and other headlines that caught my eye are after the jump.

While in pro-forma session for 59 seconds today, Senate Democrats passed a six-week extension of the Federal Aviation Administration’s authorization. Since the bill had already passed the U.S. House, it went straight to President Barack Obama. He signed it right away, ending the partial shutdown of the FAA that began on July 22. Furloughed FAA employees can go back to work, and airport construction projects put on hold can resume.

The short-term extension contains some cuts to the Essential Air Service program subsidizing service to small airports (including three in Iowa). House Republicans want to phase out that program, while most Democrats want to preserve it. The bill passed today does not include Republican-backed language that would make it more difficult for airline workers to join a union.

LATE UPDATE: The FAA shutdown delayed planned upgrades at the Southeast Iowa Regional Airport in Burlington, possibly until after the winter.

One of the most surprising Iowa House Republican winners from 2010 now has a Democratic challenger. Altoona City Council member Joe Riding announced yesterday that he will run against State Representative Kim Pearson in the new House district 30, a swing seat covering much of eastern Polk County.  

About 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration employees are on furlough and many airport construction projects are on hold because the U.S. House and Senate failed to agree on a bill extending the FAA’s authorization. Depending on how and when Congress resolves this dispute, several Iowa airports and the travelers who use them could be affected.  

The Iowa legislature barely kept hope alive for future funding to support a passenger rail link connecting Iowa City to Chicago, via the Quad Cities. However, most Iowa Transportation Commission members back the Amtrak project and would consider moving funds from other areas to make it happen.

The U.S. Senate approved the last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling today by a vote of 74 to 26 (roll call). Iowa’s senators voted no for very different reasons. Democrat Tom Harkin reject the deal he called “a clear and present danger to the fragile, indeed faltering, economic recovery.” Republican Chuck Grassley said the plan “delays meaningful spending reductions, fails to address entitlement spending in a way that will save the programs for future generations of retirees, and leaves open the possibility of tax increases.” The complete statements from by Harkin and Grassley are after the jump.

Yesterday all five Iowans in the U.S. House voted against the debt deal as well. To my knowledge, no other state’s entire Congressional delegation rejected this national embarrassment.

After hailing passage of an austerity plan that will deeply cut domestic spending, President Barack Obama said today, “We’ve got to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put America back to work.” He missed that chance.

LATE UPDATE: Richard Kogan posted a helpful summary on “How the Potential Across-the-Board Cuts in the Debt Limit Deal Would Occur.”

Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks insisted on August 1 that state efforts to reduce and prevent smoking will continue deep despite budget cuts, which just cost a senior department staffer her job.

The House of Representatives passed the bill on raising the debt ceiling today by a surprisingly large margin of 269 to 161 (roll call). About three quarters of the Republicans recognized what a great deal they wrangled out of a weak president. However, Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) were among the 66 House Republicans who voted no.

Vice President Joe Biden spent part of Monday selling this raw deal to Democrats on the hill, and half the Democratic caucus ended up voting yes, including Gabrielle Giffords, making her first return to the capitol since she was shot in January. Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) were all among the 95 Democrats who voted no.

Memo to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and all other stupid Democrats who voted for today’s deal: This is why no one powerful ever cares what House Democrats say. Republicans got President Barack Obama to meet almost 100 percent of their demands. They should have been forced to provide 100 percent of the votes to approve this bill. Pelosi claimed the deal protected Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from cuts, but the “super-Congress” deficit-cutting commission will have other ideas. Some other Democrats pointed to large potential cuts in defense spending over the next decade. I have a bridge in Windsor Heights to sell anyone who believes those cuts will materialize.

After the jump I’ve posted statements on today’s vote from Braley, Loebsack, Boswell and Latham. I will add King’s when it appears. I have requested a comment from King’s Democratic challenger, Christie Vilsack, and if I receive a reply I will post it below. Click here for details about how Iowans voted on the debt ceiling bills that reached the House floor Friday and Saturday.

UPDATE: Added King’s statement slamming the debt limit deal below. Like Latham, he said the agreement didn’t do enough to limit future government spending. In their comments, Braley, Loebsack and Boswell all emphasized that the deal puts too much of the deficit-cutting burden on the middle class while protecting wealthy individuals and special interests.

President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders announced a deal on raising the debt ceiling in exchange for at least $2 trillion in domestic spending cuts. The agreement is complicated in many respects, but the gist is that Republicans will get almost everything they have demanded throughout this process (if they are smart enough to accept total victory).

After the jump I’ve posted the ludicrous White House talking points on why this deal is “a win for the economy and budget discipline.” They brag about putting the U.S. “on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President,” as if that’s a good thing. No economist would endorse big domestic spending cuts, given the current state of the economy. The deal calls for many of those cuts to happen in 2013 or later, but unemployment is not going down in any significant way before 2013–more likely, it will increase. Some Democrats claim the president will hold the line on extending the Bush tax cuts in late 2012, but that is a sick joke. Obama has no credibility on these issues. Only two weeks ago he said he would reject a $2.4 trillion spending cut plan that did not include any tax increases. Look where he is now, serving up a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich” and thanking Republican leaders for doing their part.

House Speaker John Boehner is trying to sell the deal to the House Republican caucus with this slide show (pdf file). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hasn’t committed to supporting the deal, but I assume a significant number of House Democrats will be stupid enough to go along. Any Democrat who votes for this deal deserves to lose.

I will update this post with comments from the Iowans in Congress as those become available. Recent statements from most of the Iowa delegation are here, along with details on how our representatives in the U.S. House and Senate voted on the debt ceiling proposals offered since Friday.

UPDATE: The deal passed the House easily on August 1, but all of Iowa’s representatives voted against it.

Dubuque area residents are still dealing with the aftermath of more than 10 inches of rain in a 24-hour period this week, which caused massive flash flooding and road closures. It was a one-day record for rainfall. Governor Terry Branstad changed his schedule on July 28 to inspect the damage.

The Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa wrapped up today in Davenport. From what I’ve read and seen on the news, it sounds like the pass-through and overnight towns generally did a great job providing refreshments and entertainment for the riders. It can’t have been pleasant bicycling and camping out in this week’s high heat, but thousands of riders made it all the way to the Mississippi River. RAGBRAI officials made minor route changes in Davenport, fearing flooding after the heavy rain in Dubuque, but the river stayed in its banks.

A little more than a year ago, flooding washed away the dam at Lake Delhi in Delaware County. The lake quickly drained, ruining what had been a popular resort area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency denied funding for people who owned houses on the former lake. Property values and tax receipts are way down. In the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund bill for fiscal year 2012, state legislators included funding for a Lake Delhi dam restoration study, as well as “intent” language regarding future funds for reconstruction. Branstad used his item veto power to remove the planned funding to rebuild the dam, saying any commitment was premature before the study results have been received. More details on Branstad’s veto are after the jump. I see his point, but the veto will hurt local efforts to secure other financing for the project.

It’s worth noting that Branstad urged state legislators to pass a bill this year promoting nuclear reactor construction in Iowa, even though MidAmerican is only one year into a three-year feasibility study on that project. The pro-nuclear bill passed the Iowa House but didn’t come up for a floor vote in the Iowa Senate.

This week Kiplinger released its 2011 list of “Best Value Cities” nationwide, and Cedar Rapids was ranked number 9. Analysts cited strong local employers, good amenities, reasonable home prices, and a good recovery from the 2008 flooding. Kiplinger mentioned major downtown renovation projects but not the I-JOBS state infrastructure bonding initiative, which was a crucial for financing those projects. State Representative Renee Schulte, who represents part of northeast Cedar Rapids, cheered the praise from Kiplinger. Like all other Iowa House Republicans, she voted against the I-JOBS program. Schulte won her first election in Iowa House district 37 by just 13 votes in 2008. The Democrat she defeated, Art Staed, is seeking a rematch in the new House district 66 in 2012.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

The U.S. House on Friday evening approved Speaker John Boehner’s latest bill to sharply cut federal spending as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. The bill barely passed by a 218 to 210 vote (roll call). Every House Democrat present voted no, including Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). The big surprise for me was that both Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) were among the 22 Republicans who voted against the bill. I expected King to oppose the measure, because many of his Tea Party Caucus colleagues believe Boehner isn’t cutting enough spending. But Latham is one of the speaker’s closest friends, and I thought he would be one of the votes putting the bill over the top. It was a tremendous struggle for Boehner to line up enough support for this bill; he had to delay Thursday’s scheduled vote in order to rewrite some provisions today.

Sometimes in situations like these, the House speaker gives some members in the majority caucus permission to vote no, if they are in tough districts. Latham will face Boswell in the new third Congressional district next year, and some of the spending cuts in this bill would affect popular programs. It’s possible Latham voted no with Boehner’s consent, once the speaker knew he had 218 yes votes lined up. That insulates Latham against some potential attack ads. However, Latham was on WHO radio this afternoon saying something must be done to ensure that the government pays its bills. If he acknowledges the need to raise the debt ceiling, when does he think a better deal will come around than Boehner’s bill?

Incidentally, House leaders don’t seem inclined to move on Latham’s bill to prioritize certain types of spending in case no debt ceiling deal is reached.

The U.S. Senate is expected to table the latest House bill on the debt ceiling later Friday evening. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been working on a new “compromise” that is depressingly similar to what Boehner proposed, so Congress is probably headed toward a total Republican victory–big spending cuts, no revenue increases. Notably, if the U.S. ever does pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, all the savings would go toward deficit reduction, rather than investing in our own infrastructure or social programs. Never mind that the U.S. economy is sputtering and will probably go back into recession under fiscal austerity. That serves Republican political interests as well, because President Barack Obama will be blamed for the downward spiral. Obama’s approval rating on the economy is already low, and most Americans think job creation is more important than deficit reduction right now.

For some reason, Obama prefers this outcome to Senator Tom Harkin’s advice: raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

UPDATE: On Friday night six Senate Republicans voted with all 53 members of the Democratic caucus to table the motion on concurring with Boehner’s bill (roll call). Grassley was among the 41 Republicans who opposed the motion to table.

Statements released by Latham, King, Loebsack and Braley are now after the jump.

SATURDAY UPDATE: The House rejected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bill on July 30; it was a symbolic vote because Reid is still revising the proposal, which so far doesn’t have enough support to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Most House Democrats voted for the Reid bill, including Boswell. However, Braley and Loebsack were among the 11 Democrats who voted with all Republicans present against that bill (roll call). I am seeking comment from Braley and Loebsack offices on why they voted against the Reid proposal. It’s worth noting that like Boehner’s bill, Reid’s plan would cut more than $2 trillion in spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. A total disgrace.

UPDATE: Loebsack released this statement about Saturday’s vote: “We must get Iowa’s economy moving forward.  Today’s vote was not about a solution, it was about political leverage in Washington.”

FURTHER UPDATE: Here’s Harkin speaking on July 30:

“I’m talking about that there’s precedents for presidents to do things where the Constitution doesn’t give the president explicit authority but it doesn’t prohibit the president from doing it, and I believe there’s a basis in the 14th amendment as decided in Perry v. United States,” Sen Tom Harkin (D-IA) said on the Senate floor. “I think the president – barring action from the Congress – not only has the authority to do so, he has the responsibility to not let this country default.”

SUNDAY UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Reid called a cloture motion on his horrendous compromise proposal Sunday afternoon. It needed 60 votes to pass but only received 50, mostly from Democrats (roll call). I don’t understand Harkin voting for cloture here, when the bill has none of the balance he has advocated. Maybe he planned to vote against the bill itself later–who knows? Grassley voted against cloture, as did every Republican present besides Scott Brown. I’ve added Grassley’s statement below.

Governor Terry Branstad won’t push for major changes in the state’s universal voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds during the next two years, according to Iowa Department of Education Director Jason Glass. While taping Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program on July 28, Glass said the governor had decided “to move past this debate” on whether preschool should be universal or targeted to needy families. Branstad’s communications director Tim Albrecht confirmed to Mike Wiser the same day,

“Now that preschool funding is in place, Gov. Branstad does not believe a preschool funding debate should overshadow a meaningful debate on how to again make Iowa’s schools the best in the country,” Albrecht wrote in a follow-up email. “Now that Gov. Branstad has allocated funding for preschool over the next two years, he does not desire this settled issue to get in the way of our education reform goals.”

That is the smartest thing Branstad has done all week.  

Governor Terry Branstad has nixed Iowa Democrats’ top tax policy priority for the second time this year. The governor signed the broad budget “standings” bill yesterday, but used his item veto power to eliminate several provisions, including an expansion in the earned income tax credit for working people. The governor’s veto message said,

“This change is estimated to reduce revenue to the state general fund by $28.5 million for fiscal years 2012-2013,” Branstad said. “It is my desire to approach tax policy in a comprehensive and holistic manner. As such, I urge members of the House and Senate to continue to work with my office on an overall tax reduction package that both fits within or sound budgeting principles while reducing those taxes that are impeding our state’s ability to compete for new business and jobs.”

Branstad vetoed the same tax credit expansion in a compromise bill the legislature approved in April. At that time, he also cited his “desire to approach tax policy in a comprehensive and holistic manner.”

Spending $28.5 million over two years would have helped at least 225,000 Iowa households, more by some calculations. The earned income tax credit goes entirely to lower-income and middle-income families earning less than $48,000 per year.

In a press call this morning, AFSCME Council 61 president Danny Homan described Branstad’s action as “mean-spirited,” and I would agree. In this economy, why would you block a little extra help to working households? Iowa Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Joe Bolkcom noted in a statement, “Studies show that the Earned Income Tax Credit is the most effective antipoverty program for working families. Plus the money is spent at our small and Main Street businesses, helping to further spur our local economy.”

Branstad’s veto doesn’t look like smart politics either. During the 2012 legislative session, he wants to pass a major education reform package, comprehensive property tax reform and corporate income tax cuts. Yet he’s tanked the top Democratic tax priority twice. He is forging ahead with closing Iowa Workforce Development offices, even though saving those offices was high on the Democrats’ list throughout the 2011 session. Democrats have only a narrow Iowa Senate majority, but that majority held together for the last six months. I don’t understand why Branstad thinks he’ll be able to get any of his priorities through the upper chamber next year.

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership published a short piece on why expanding the earned income tax credit is good policy. I’ve posted that piece after the jump, along with the full text of Bolkcom’s statement on the Branstad veto and a comment from U.S. Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01).

Iowans for Tax Relief, an advocacy group that claims to be “the taxpayers’ watchdog,” was missing in action today. The organization endorsed Branstad in the 2010 gubernatorial primary as well as the general election. Iowans for Tax Relief criticized Branstad’s veto of the earned income tax credit expansion in April. Since then, the organization has had substantial turnover on its staff and board of directors. Still, you’d think they would notice the governor blocking a tax break for hundreds of thousands of Iowans.

Also from the standings bill, Branstad item vetoed a ban on bonus pay for state employees. His communications director says the bonuses are needed to attract and retain “exceptional employees,” but it looks bad for Branstad to insist on bonuses for his favorites while vetoing help for woking families. O.Kay Henderson noted at Radio Iowa that Republican lawmakers criticized Democratic Governors Tom Vilsack and Chet Culver for awarding bonuses to some state employees. Speaking on behalf of AFSCME, Homan slammed Branstad for “running around the state telling the citizens how the state’s going broke because they’re giving the union employees a two percent raise and a one percent raise and now he’s going to allow for bonuses for his department heads.”

If Republican legislative leaders comment on Branstad’s vetoes, I will add their statements to this post. So far, it’s been radio silence from the Iowa House and Senate GOP leadership.

Iowa Workforce Development officials can move ahead with closing 37 36 of the agency’s 55 field offices around Iowa, thanks to a line-item veto by Governor Terry Branstad. State lawmakers included language in the economic development appropriations bill to require Iowa Workforce Development to maintain its current number of field offices through the 2012 fiscal year. However, Branstad rejected that provision yesterday:

“This item would prohibit Iowa Workforce Development from putting forth an enhanced delivery system that broadens access to Iowans across the state in fiscal year 2012,” Branstad said. “In order to develop a sustainable delivery system in light of continually fluctuating federal funding, the department must put forth a system that embraces the use of technology while providing enhanced benefits through maximum efficiencies.”

Branstad said Iowa Workforce Development has more than 190 “virtual access point workstations” in over 60 new locations throughout the state to increase access to these critica services. He says Iowans are already using the expanded hours of operation, six days a week.

“At my direction, IWD will have hundreds of additional virtual access points by the end of fiscal year 2012,” he said.

I doubt many unemployed Iowans would consider a computer terminal “enhanced” access, compared to an office staffed by a real person explaining the available services.

Controversy over shutting down these offices nearly derailed the Iowa Senate confirmation of Teresa Wahlert. Opposition from lawmakers of both parties didn’t persuade her, although two of the 39 field offices originally targeted will be spared. Iowa Workforce Development started closing some of its field offices even before legislators had adopted a final budget. In early July, the agency laid off 13 employees as part of the planned reorganization. Iowa Workforce Development Communications Coordinator Katie Hommer communications director was unable to tell me today when the agency will finish shutting down the offices slated for closure. She said staff are still going through the signed budget, which they only just received.

Hommer also did not know whether enough funds were provided for the agency to keep open its New Iowan Centers, which offer specialized services for recent immigrants. Those centers are currently located in Muscatine, Ottumwa, Marshalltown, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa City, Des Moines, Sioux City, Storm Lake, Council Bluffs, Mason City and Denison.

On a related note, Branstad’s love for streamlining government doesn’t extend to the U.S. Postal Service, which may close as many as 178 Iowa post offices. The downsizing is part of a plan to eliminate 3,700 of nearly 32,000 post offices nationwide. Branstad has repeatedly criticized plans to eliminate rural Iowa post offices, and yesterday he told Radio Iowa that the postal service is not using “common sense.” He wants the independent federal agency to explore alternatives to closing offices that small-town residents rely on.

Conservatives talk a good game about running government like a business, but a private business with declining revenues could never afford to operate retail outlets in as many locations as the U.S. Postal Service. The independent agency gets almost all of its revenues from postal fees (not federal budget allocations). As Americans send fewer paper letters and documents, postal service revenues have declined.

Branstad and his wife own 12 Iowa buildings that are leased to the U.S. Postal Service. So far only one of those, in Lohrville, is on the list of post offices to be closed.

UPDATE: Iowa House and Senate Democrats will reach out to Republicans to convene a special legislative session “with the sole purpose of overriding Governor Branstad’s line-item vetoes of legislation prohibiting the closure of the [Iowa Workforce Development] offices.” Details are in a press release I’ve posted after the jump. That document lists all the towns that would lose Iowa Workforce Development offices, as well as the county unemployment rate in each area.

SECOND UPDATE: Sounds like Republicans are not game for a special session to deal with this narrow issue. I’ve added Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley’s statement below.

THIRD UPDATE: Only 36 field offices will be closed, because federal funding came through to keep the Webster City office open. The closure of the Electrolux factory has been a particular hardship for Iowans in the local area. After the jump I’ve posted an Iowa Workforce Development press release, which lists all the cities and towns that will have the “regional integrated one-stop offices,” as well as all the localities that will lose their field offices.

Meanwhile, Iowa House and Senate Democrats formally called for a special session on July 29. Republicans are not interested. Expect these office closures to become a campaign issue in a bunch of statehouse races next year. The Golden Dome Blog found a video of Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds praising a “phenomenal” and “user friendly” workforce development office during last year’s gubernatorial campaign.

Democratic State Representative Dave Jacoby serves on the Iowa Workforce Development Board and is angry that board didn’t get to weigh in on whether these field offices should be closed.

Environmental advocates were relieved when the Iowa legislature adjourned without passing any bill to move Iowa’s water quality and monitoring programs from the Department of Natural Resources to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. However, Plan B to accomplish the same goal without legislative action took another step forward yesterday, when Chuck Gipp was named deputy director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Governor Terry Branstad’s administration advocated moving water programs to IDALS earlier this year, around the same time he stacked the Environmental Protection Commission with friends of agribusiness. Critics pointed out that the DNR had been praised for its efficient use of federal water quality funding. Moreover, it is illogical to move Clean Water Act compliance from a department that exists to “conserve and enhance our natural resources” to a department that exists “to encourage, promote, market, and advance the interests of agriculture.” Iowa House Republicans (assisted by some Democrats) approved a bill transferring some water programs to the agriculture department, but the proposal never cleared the Iowa Senate.

In May, Branstad’s DNR director Roger Lande announced major staff cuts, including three full-time and three contract positions solely focused on water monitoring. (Lande didn’t cut full-time employees from any DNR division besides the Geological and Water Survey Bureau.) At that time, DNR stream monitoring coordinator Mary Skopec warned, “This is definitely going to impact our ability to do data management and lake monitoring.” The cuts serve the interests of industrial agriculture, because collecting fewer samples from lakes and streams makes it less likely that any polluted waterway will be labeled “impaired.”

Gipp’s appointment looks like part of the same strategy to give agribusiness more control over how, when and where the DNR monitors Iowa waters. The deputy director handles a lot of day-to-day management for the large department. Gipp is a longtime dairy farmer and member of the Iowa Farm Bureau. He served in the Iowa House for 18 years, rising to the position of majority leader under Republican Speaker Chris Rants. He chose not to seek re-election in 2008, and Republican Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey named him to head the IDALS Division of Soil Conservation. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported,

Gipp, a lifelong dairy farmer who is respected in both production agriculture and environmental circles, said he hopes to foster understanding and cooperation between the two often-opposed groups.

“Both are important to Iowans, and we need to bring both sides together and strike a sustainable balance,” Gipp, 63, of Decorah, said.

It’s news to me that Gipp is respected in environmental circles. I can’t recall any instance of him using his authority as Iowa House majority leader to promote environmental protection. By all accounts Gipp did an adequate job overseeing soil conservation programs used by some farmers, but relying solely on voluntary measures (the Iowa Farm Bureau-approved method) hasn’t solved our water quality problems.

I recognize that Iowa state government will balance the DNR’s needs with those of the agriculture department, but that’s not what appears to be happening here. Having failed to move water programs to IDALS, the Branstad administration is giving IDALS substantial influence over DNR internal policies and practices. In a July 26 press release, Lande praised Gipp as “someone who is not only very dedicated and knowledgeable about conservation of our natural resources but also a very talented individual in working with our stakeholders and Legislature.” I hope Gipp proves me wrong, but I’m not encouraged to see him hired less than a week after the DNR’s top environmental regulator was pushed out the door.

UPDATE: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement highlighted Gipp’s legislative votes against any meaningful regulation of factory farm pollution. Details are after the jump.