Six candidates joined the bidding yesterday as the Republican Party of Iowa auctioned off space for the Ames straw poll event. Representative Ron Paul ponied up $31,000 for the best spot to pitch a tent outside the August 13 festivities. Four years ago, front-runner Mitt Romney used that spot, but the well-financed Romney is ditching this year’s straw poll.

The other candidates to pay at least $15,000 for guaranteed spots at the venue and on the straw poll ballot were Representative Michele Bachmann, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and (coming way out of right field) Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was conspicuously absent from the bidding. Candidates who didn’t bid yesterday may secure a spot on the straw poll ballot later. Among the possibilities: Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Follow me after the jump for more on the Republican campaign trail in Iowa, including new endorsements and Pawlenty’s first television commercial.

Yesterday the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved H.R. 2018, the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.” Environmental groups have dubbed this legislation the “Dirty Water Bill of 2011.” Iowa Democrat Leonard Boswell was in the majority that approved the bill 35 to 19, even though no the committee held no public hearings to determine the bill’s impact on water pollution. The roll call (pdf) shows that 30 Republicans and five Democrats voted yes, while 18 Democrats and one Republican voted no.

H.R. 2018 would amend the Clean Water Act “to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards, and for other purposes.” The House Transportation Committee says the bill “restricts EPA’s ability to second-guess or delay a state’s permitting and water quality certification decisions under the CWA after the federal agency has already approved a state’s program.” So, in states where major polluting industries have political clout, citizens would lose federal water quality protections. As Kate Sheppard observes, “In practice this would mean each individual state gets oversight over water policy, taking us back to the days of the Cuyahoga River fire and Love Canal, before Congress passed a federal law in 1972.”

Members of Congress introduced this bill last month in response to draft guidelines that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers released in April. Those guidelines were designed to address two Supreme Court rulings from the past decade, which “narrowly interpreted the scope of waters covered by the [Clean Water] Act, putting in doubt pollution safeguards for many vital wetlands, lakes and streams.” Click here for more background on those court rulings.

Boswell is the only Iowan currently serving on the transportation committee. His office did not release a statement on H.R. 2018 and has not yet responded to my request for comment on why he voted for this bill. I will update this post with Boswell’s explanation if and when I receive it. The EPA has said that agricultural runoff is the biggest source of pollution in U.S. waterways. Boswell’s voting record has generally aligned with agribusiness interests, and it’s been obvious for decades that Iowa policy-makers have failed to adequately control agricultural pollution.

Eight-term incumbent Boswell faces a tough re-election contest next year against nine-term Republican Representative Tom Latham in the Iowa’s new third Congressional district. It’s a relatively balanced district in terms of voter registration, but Latham is likely to have much more money to spend on his campaign. To win another term, Boswell will need to outperform the top of the Democratic ticket in rural areas of the new IA-03.

After the jump I’ve posted the full text of H.R. 2018, along with a Sierra Club statement describing it as “the most significant weakening of the Clean Water Act since Congress enacted comprehensive federal clean water legislation in 1972.” During yesterday’s committee meeting, Democrat Tim Bishop of New York offered an amendment seeking to neutralize this bill. His amendment stated that none of the provisions in the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act “would apply to waters that are a source for public drinking water, provide flood protection, are a valuable fish and wildlife habitat, or are coastal recreational waters.” The committee defeated his amendment by voice vote.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Still no comment from Boswell’s office on this vote. I have added below the House Transportation Committee’s summary of H.R. 2018.

President Barack Obama announced a slight change in our Afghanistan policy on television last night.

[S]tarting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

He asserted that the U.S. undertakes this drawdown “from a position of strength,” as the Al Qaeda terrorist network is now “under more pressure than at any time since 9/11.” He said the U.S. can achieve its goal to allow “no safe-haven” from which terorists “can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies.” Obama also linked his gradual drawdown to boosting the U.S. economy:

Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. […]

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

We’d have more resources to invest in the U.S. economy if we were bringing more troops home sooner. By the end of next summer our troop presence in Afghanistan will still be larger than it was when Obama became president. He ordered at least 21,000 additional U.S. troops to that war zone before the surge of 30,000 troops he announced at West Point in December 2009. Recent polling suggests a majority of Americans support withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at a faster pace.

We’d also be better positioned to “focus on nation building” at home if the president had not agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts and bought into the austerity politics that makes another federal stimulus package unthinkable.

After the jump I’ve posted the full text of Obama’s televised remarks, along with comments released by Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03). Boswell praised Obama’s plan “to significantly reduce troops by the end of the year” as “an important first step in lessening our military presence and financial obligations in Afghanistan.” In contrast, Harkin said U.S. troops should be brought home from Afghanistan at a faster pace, saying, “We cannot justify the continued loss of life” and “can’t sustain the nearly $10 billion we are spending each month in Afghanistan this year.” Harkin questioned our presence in Afghanistan following the killing of Osama bin Laden. He was among 27 U.S. senators (24 Democrats, two Republicans and one independent) who wrote to Obama earlier this month urging “a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.”

I will update this post if other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation comment on Obama’s speech. Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) is the only Iowan on the House Armed Services Committee. Last month Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) called for “immediate withdrawal of our combat troops from Afghanistan,” bringing them home by the end of this year.

In related news, the U.S. Senate on June 21 unanimously confirmed Leon Panetta as the new Secretary of Defense. Greg Jaffe reported on outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ reaction to Obama’s speech last night:

“I support the President’s decision because it provides our commanders with enough resources, time and, perhaps most importantly, flexibility to bring the surge to a successful conclusion.” It’s clear that Gates would have preferred the surge troops stay in place through the end of 2012. But his statement suggests he still believes that the military will have enough forces to continue with the current counterinsurgency strategy.

UPDATE: Braley’s statement is now also below. He doesn’t agree with Obama’s plan and wants troops to come home sooner.

LATE UPDATE: Loebsack’s statement is now below.

Five months into Rick Green’s tenure as editor of The Des Moines Register, the newspaper is culling its newsroom staff again. The sad details are after the jump.

Governor Terry Branstad today: “I just want to assure the people of Iowa that I know what I’m doing.”

He has “no written plan” for how state government will function if a 2012 budget hasn’t been adopted by June 30. But no worries, he’s “been through emergencies before,” “understands and respects the responsibility that I have” and will use emergency powers if necessary to provide “the services the people need.” Anyway, Branstad told reporters, “There’s not going to be a shutdown.”

This budget standoff should have been resolved weeks ago, and the governor has been a big part of the problem. Despite improving state revenue collections, Branstad demanded significant cuts in education and human services when submitting his draft budget in January. A few months later, he line-item vetoed a Democratic tax cut priority, having raised no objections to that policy when legislators negotiated that bill with the governor’s staff in the room.

When the Iowa legislature’s scheduled adjournment date passed with little progress toward a 2012 budget, Branstad said don’t worry, we have plenty of time, we just need to “get serious” about working things out with “patience and perseverance.” But instead of advocating for a middle ground between House Republicans and Senate Democrats, Branstad decided in May to insist on the House Republican general fund spending target ($5.99 billion). That figure was about $160 million less than what Branstad proposed in his own draft budget. Moving away from the middle ground made no sense, because by the spring, Iowa’s revenue projections for fiscal year 2012 had improved compared to late last year.

Now Senate Democrats have agreed to the Republican overall spending target, but the governor won’t make significant concessions on Democratic funding priorities. The parties are still far apart on spending levels for human services, for example.

Iowans deserve more from Branstad than “trust me,” the government won’t shut down, and if it does, I know what to do.

Catching up on news from Congress, the U.S. House on June 16 approved an Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012. House Republican leaders worked hard to whip up support for the bill, which squeaked through on a 217 to 203 vote (roll call). Of Iowa’s five House members, only Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) voted for final passage. He is close to House Speaker John Boehner. Steve King (IA-05) was among 19 Republicans to vote no; that group included “tea party” favorites like Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Ron Paul of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Every Democrat present voted against the agriculture appropriations measure, including Iowans Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03).

Latham did not send out a news release on passage of this bill, which is odd, since he serves on the House Appropriations Committee. Then again, Latham also didn’t officially comment on House passage of the Defense Authorization Act last month.

Many Democrats opposed the agriculture appropriations bill because of big spending cuts like $600 million less for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program and a $30 million less for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That commission is supposed to protect the public from fraud and manipulation of commodities markets. Loebsack and Boswell didn’t release statements explaining their vote against the agriculture appropriations legislation, despite the fact that Boswell serves on the House Agriculture Committee. Braley charged that the bill would hurt the Iowa economy in this statement to the media on June 16:

“Since the start of this Congress, we’ve seen a sustained attack on Iowa farmers and our state’s economy. This bill is just the latest to threaten the thousands of jobs that depend on agriculture and the ethanol industry. I voted against previous bills that threatened Iowa jobs and I voted against this bill today because I will always stand up for Iowa farmers, jobs and our middle class families.”

King didn’t draw attention to his vote against final passage of the appropriations measure, but he hailed the House votes on both of his amendments (only one of which passed). King’s statements and background on his amendments are after the jump. I also discuss how the Iowa delegation voted on other important amendments brought to the floor during two hours of debate. Sometimes all five Iowans voted the same way, sometimes they split on party lines, and sometimes King stood alone.

Iowa’s current fiscal year ends on June 30, which gives Governor Terry Branstad, Republican leaders in the Iowa House and Democratic leaders in the Iowa Senate just ten days to approve a 2012 budget without disrupting state government operations. Although the parties have settled on a total spending target for the next fiscal year, they are still at odds over funding for key programs. They appear to have made no progress toward a compromise on commercial property tax reform, which Branstad demands as part of any final budget deal.

Lots of links on spending priorities, rival tax proposals and government shutdown scenarios are after the jump.

UPDATE: Scroll to the end for further details Senate Democrats released on June 20 regarding a budget compromise.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty sent out his first direct mail to Iowa Republicans this week. The mailer is a biographical piece, describing Pawlenty’s childhood and family background as well as key achievements as governor. Two prominent Iowa Republicans are co-chairing Pawlenty’s campaign in this state: former gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong and Roger Underwood. Fong has carved out a niche as a promoter of conservatism among younger Iowa voters. Underwood has worked in the ag industry in Ames for the last three decades and was a policy adviser for Terry Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign. After the jump I’ve posted the Pawlenty campaign press release with more background on Fong and Underwood.

Black Hawk County Republicans still hope Representative Michele Bachmann will officially announce her candidacy in Waterloo this month, even though she already confirmed during Monday’s CNN Republican debate that she is running for president. In a web video released June 13, Bachmann said she had filed papers to run and promised, “With your common sense and with your energy, working together, we will take our country back in 2012.” Many presidential candidates become book authors, and Bachmann is shopping around a memoir, to be published this fall. State Senator Kent Sorenson is heading Bachmann’s campaign in Iowa; Iowa GOP State Central Committee member Wes Enos is a staffer for her political action committee. Enos was Mike Huckabee’s political director in Iowa before the 2008 caucuses.

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s presidential campaign looks finished before it officially began. A few days ago Danny Carroll resigned as Moore’s Iowa campaign chair, saying Moore was not “going to be able to raise the money necessary for a viable campaign.” Sioux City Pastor Cary Gordon, a Moore supporter and prominent figure in last year’s campaign against retaining Iowa Supreme Court justices, told Bret Hayworth that he has advised Moore to drop the presidential bid he’s been exploring. Moore wasn’t raising enough money to compete in the Iowa GOP’s August straw poll in Ames, Gordon explained.

Parenting magazine just named Des Moines number 5 on its list of 100 “best cities for families,” citing good education, health and amenities as well as a low unemployment rate. Moving his wife and children to Des Moines for several months didn’t boost then-Senator Chris Dodd’s campaign for the 2008 Democratic caucuses. But at least Dodd wasn’t charging a school district back home in Connecticut for his daughters’ education in Iowa. When Rick Santorum was in the U.S. Senate, a suburban Pittsburgh school district paid big bucks for his children to use its internet-based school from their home in Virginia.

Speaking of Santorum, has anyone heard his Iowa radio commercial? His campaign didn’t release the size of the ad buy.

This is an open thread.

Like other states, Iowa is digging a fiscal hole by not spending enough to repair roads, according to a report Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense released this month. The non-profit Smart Growth America is “the only national organization dedicated to researching, advocating for and leading coalitions to bring smart growth practices to more communities nationwide.” Taxpayers for Common Sense is “a non-partisan budget watchdog” seeking “to achieve a government that spends taxpayer dollars responsibly and operates within its means.”

The “Repair Priorites” report notes that less than half of Iowa’s roads are in good condition, yet the state continues to spend disproportionately on new road construction rather than repair. Table 1 on pages 10 and 11 of this pdf file shows that Iowa has about 22,999 “state-owned lane-miles of major roads,” of which just 10,558 (46 percent) are in good condition. Iowa would need to spend about $552 million per year to repair and preserve state roads in good condition, but that figure exceeds the total Iowa Department of Transportation budget for capital investments. Between 2004 and 2008, Iowa was spending about $172 million per year on repair and preservation for state-maintained roads. That’s roughly 32 percent of the capital investment budget. Meanwhile, Iowa added 363 state-owned lane miles between 2004 and 2008, spending more than $190 million annually on road expansion (see table A4 on pages 29 and 30).

As time passes and roads deteriorate from “good” to “fair” or “poor” condition, repairs become far more expensive. Figure 3 on page 12 of the report shows that maintaining a road “in good condition over time costs less than half the cost of making major repairs after letting the same road deteriorate to poor condition.”

Excerpts from the “Repair Priorities” executive summary and Iowa fact sheet are after the jump.

Governor Terry Branstad has suggested that Iowa needs to increase the gas tax to pay for the long-term needs of the state’s road system. To protect taxpayers’ long-term interests, the governor and officials like Department of Transportation Director Paul Trombino should support investing more on road maintenance to reduce future costs.

Underscoring Iowa’s failure to maintain its vital infrastructure, a report Transportation for America released in March indicated that Iowa is the third-worst state for structurally deficient bridges. Earlier this year, Smart Growth America’s report on “smart transportation” policies for Iowa (pdf) recommended that state policy-makers: allocate more funds to maintain and repair roads and bridges; invest more in public transportation; assign some transportation money to grants that would reward “innovative least cost solutions”; and revisit the spending priorities in the Iowa Department of Transportation’s Long Range Transportation Plan.

Two days after rejecting a similar measure, the Senate voted today to repeal a key ethanol tax credit as of July 1:

[Democratic Senator Dianne] Feinstein’s amendment to an economic development bill would quickly end the credit of 45 cents for each gallon of ethanol that fuel blenders mix into gasoline. The credit led to $5.4 billion inforegone revenue last year, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The amendment also ends the 54-cent per gallon import tariff that protects the domestic ethanol industry.

Thursday’s vote was a turnaround from Tuesday, when just 40 senators voted for [Republican Senator Tom] Coburn’s identical amendment, well shy of the 60 needed to advance it.

But the politics of Tuesday’s battle were clouded by Democratic anger at Coburn’s surprise procedural move last week that set up the vote. Democratic leaders had whipped against the amendment heading into Tuesday’s vote, but two aides said they did not do so ahead of the vote Thursday.

Both Iowans in the Senate voted against the Feinstein amendment, which passed 73 to 27 (roll call). Tom Harkin was one of 13 Democrats to vote no, and Chuck Grassley was one of 14 Republicans to vote no. Most of the opposition came from significant corn-producing states.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack called today’s Senate vote “ill advised” and warned that jobs would be lost. His full statement is after the jump. I will update this post with reaction from Harkin and Grassley if it becomes available. Their comments on Tuesday’s ethanol vote are here.

UPDATE: Philip Brasher writes for the Des Moines Register,

The vote was largely symbolic in that the House is expected to reject the provision because tax measures are supposed to originate in the House, not in the Senate. But the sweeping defeat was a powerful indication of how the industry’s once legendary political clout on Capitol Hill has all but disappeared because of  the federal deficit and concerns about the impact of the biofuel on food prices and the environment. The subsidy and tariff are due to expire at the end of the year and the industry is trying to continue some kind of subsidy after that  to go with the annual usage mandates that require refiners  to add ethanol to gasoline. The mandate rises each year until 2015 before leveling off at 15 billion gallons. […]

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said that the rising cost of food is a sleeper issue around the country and that the vote to kill the ethanol subsidy was a “vote to lower food prices and to lower the national debt.” […]

The ethanol industry did achieve one victory today when the Senate rejected, 59-41,  a proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to block the Obama administration from subsidizing the installation of ethanol pumps and storage tanks. However, the House approved a similar measure 283-128 earlier in the day as part of an appropriations bill for the Agriculture Department. That Senate vote’s important, however, because it shows the industry has support there for shifting at least some of the  federal aid it’s now getting into infrastructure subsidies, according to energy policy analyst Kevin Book.

Former Democratic State Senator Frank Wood announced on June 15 that he will run for the Iowa House in district 92 next year. That district covers several rural townships in western Scott County, the towns Eldridge, Blue Grass, and Walcott, and part of Davenport. Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans in the district, but a plurality of voters there are independents. As of April 2011, the new House district 92 contained 6,091 registered Democrats, 5,518 Republicans and 8,941 no-party voters.

Wood is a former mayor of Eldridge and a former associate principal at North Scott Senior High School in Eldridge. He served one term in the Iowa Senate, representing the current district 42 (covering parts of western Scott and Clinton counties). He defeated Republican incumbent Bryan Sievers by a small margin in 2004, but narrowly lost his 2008 re-election bid to Republican Shawn Hamerlinck.

Wood’s likely opponent in 2012 is State Representative Ross Paustian, a farmer from Walcott who lost a 2008 race in House district 84 to Elesha Gayman. Paustian easily won the same district in a 2010 open-seat race.

After the jump I’ve posted a map of the new House district 92 as well as Wood’s official campaign announcement and bio. Two other former Democratic state senators are also running for the Iowa House in 2012. Bill Heckroth and Rich Olive, who both lost re-election bids in 2010, are competing in House districts 63 and 48, respectively.

After a few slow weeks, I’m reviving the Bleeding Heartland event calendar. Details on happenings around the state are after the jump.

As always, please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of another public event that should be included on this calendar.

No matter what happens during the ongoing state budget negotiations, Iowa Workforce Development will close 37 of its 55 field offices around the state, barely budging from initial plans to close 39 offices. The agency will maintain 16 full-service regional offices and two smaller field offices. State legislators aren’t happy about the consolidation plans, which will force many unemployed Iowans to drive further for personal assistance. Agency officials counter that budget constraints forced their hand.

More details and background on this controversy are after the jump.  

Scientists are predicting this year’s Gulf of Mexico dead zone will be the largest ever.

In January of 2008, USGS identified commercial fertilizers and animal manure from farmland in 9 states as the cause of over 70 percent of the Dead Zone pollution. Evidence is mounting that the mandated push to increase corn production – one of the most fertilizer intensive crops – for ethanol exacerbates water quality problems within the states and in the Gulf.

The 9 states contributing over 70 percent of the dead zone-causing nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants are: Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi.

In April of 2009, the U.S. Geological Survey identified 42 Iowa watersheds as among the top 150 watersheds contributing too much nitrogen and/or phosphorus to the Gulf of Mexico and the resulting Dead Zone.

More details at this science blog by Eric Berger with good link to an explanation of the Dead Zone.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin both voted to preserve a key ethanol tax credit today, as an effort to end that credit six months early fell way short of the 60 votes needed in the U.S. Senate. Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had submitted an amendment to repeal the 45-cent-per-gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit for ethanol blenders as of July 1. The credit is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011. Coburn’s amendment “also would have eliminated a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol,” saving the federal government approximately $2.7 billion total. Only 40 senators (34 Republicans and six who caucus with Democrats) voted for a cloture motion on Coburn’s amendment. Grassley and Harkin were among the 59 senators (13 Republicans and 46 who caucus with Democrats) who voted against cloture; click here for the roll call.

Today’s vote might have been much closer had Coburn not used unusual Senate procedures to force the legislation to the floor. Democratic Senate leaders whipped the vote against Coburn’s amendment, bringing around some Democrats who oppose ethanol subsidies. Democrat Dianne Feinstein, a co-sponsor of the Coburn amendment, nonetheless voted no on today’s cloture motion and said publicly, “If it weren’t for the process, we would have 60 votes.” Feinstein had urged Coburn “to withdraw his amendment and wait until next week” for a Senate vote.

Most of the Republicans who voted against the Coburn amendment represent large corn-producing states. A major anti-tax group’s opposition to the measure may have peeled off a few GOP votes as well. Grover Norquist’s group Americans for Tax Reform argued that eliminating any tax credit without simultaneously adding new tax cuts amounts to a tax increase.

Ethanol supporters also reduced support for Coburn’s amendment by introducing a rival proposal yesterday. Harkin and Grassley are both co-sponsoring the new bipartisan Senate legislation:

While Coburn’s language would completely eliminate the subsidy, the pro-ethanol proposal would cut off the subsidy on July 1, and replace it with a variable subsidy that fluctuates with the price of oil. […]

Under this proposal, ethanol blenders would get no subsidy at all when oil prices are above $90 a barrel. If oil falls to between $80 and $90 a barrel, they would get a six cents per gallon subsidy. Another six cents would be added for each $10 drop in the price of oil, and a maximum subsidy of 30 cents a gallon could be received when oil falls to $50 a barrel or less (a summary of the bill is here).

That’s still less than the current 45 cents a gallon subsidy that ethanol blenders receive currently, regardless of the price of oil.

Proponents of the bill say ending the current system on July 1 and moving to a variable subsidy would save $2.5 billion. In a nod to Coburn and his supporters, the bill would use $1 billion of that for deficit reduction.

The rest would be used for the variable subsidy, but also for the development of ethanol infrastructure and other incentives. For example, the bill would expand tax credits to ethanol blender pumps, and extend through 2014 the small producer ethanol credit.

After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s floor statement against the Coburn amendment and his comments released after today’s vote. I will update this post if I see official comment from Harkin.

UPDATE: Added Harkin’s statement praising the Senate for rejecting “this misguided amendment.” The Iowa Environmental Council reminds us that the government’s pro-ethanol policy has unintended consequences for water quality.

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is back in Iowa today, meeting and greeting potential caucus-goers in Denison before attending a “Trunk & Tusk” reception at a farm near Holstein later in the afternoon. Tonight he headlines an event for the Ida County Republican Party, and tomorrow he will join the Iowa Tea Party bus tour in Spencer.

Starting this week, Santorum will reach Iowa Republicans though the radio as well. His first commercial went up yesterday on nationwide satellite radio and hits the airwaves in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina later this week. The campaign didn’t release the size of the ad buy.

You can listen to Santorum’s 60-second spot at his presidential campaign website. I’ve posted my transcript after the jump, along with some analysis of the message and what’s notably absent from the message.

For those who plan to watch this evening’s CNN debate featuring seven Republican presidential candidates, here’s a new discussion thread on the race for the GOP nomination.

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty tried to set the media narrative going into the debate. During a Sunday morning appearance on Fox News, Pawlenty noted, “President Obama said that he designed ‘Obamacare’ after ‘Romneycare’ and basically made it ‘Obamneycare.’” Romney’s campaign responded, “Republicans should keep the focus on President Obama’s failure to create jobs and control spending.” Easier said than done, given how unpopular the health insurance reform law is with the GOP primary electorate.

Pawlenty has traded blows with Representative Michele Bachmann over the past few days:

During a Friday interview, Neil Cavuto of Fox showed Mr. Pawlenty a poll indicating he’s running at the back of the pack and he asked the former governor if he was annoyed that Ms. Bachmann seems to generate more buzz than he does. “Look,” he replied, “I’m not speaking about Michele Bachmann here but I’m not running for comedian-in-chief or entertainer-in-chief. You know, if people want to have that be the main consideration, they should go to a Broadway show.”

In a WSJ Opinion interview Saturday, Ms. Bachmann was asked whether Mr. Pawlenty as a good governor. “I really don’t want to comment,” she said.

Some Iowa Republicans believe Pawlenty is best positioned to capitalize on last week’s mass exodus of Newt Gingrich staffers and Romney’s decision not to contest the Ames straw poll.  I find it hard to see Pawlenty drawing a lot of enthusiastic support from the rank and file. If he seems to be on the rise, it won’t be hard for other candidates to bring up his terrible record of fiscal management.

Besides Pawlenty, Romney, Bachmann and Gingrich, the CNN debate will also include former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, Representative Ron Paul, and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. CNN excluded some candidates who have been campaigning in New Hampshire, such as former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and longtime campaign operative Fred Karger, probably the best-known Republican supporter of marriage equality.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman decided against participating in this debate, but he is likely to announce his candidacy in the next two weeks. Appearing on CNN yesterday, Huntsman indicated that he would accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. His campaign will put foreign policy experience front and center, but Huntsman has also begun to criticize President Barack Obama’s economic record. If he did that on the debate stage, his rivals would surely point out that Huntsman supported the 2009 federal stimulus.

Pundits increasingly speculate that Texas Governor Rick Perry will run for president. He has reportedly been talking to major donors, and could hire a couple of the senior staffers who quit the Gingrich campaign. I don’t see Perry as a strong presidential candidate. Linda Feldman discussed some of his weaknesses in the Christian Science Monitor, but she left out one other glaring problem in his record. This year Texas had the second-largest projected state budget shortfall in the country (as a percentage of current-year state government spending), even larger than California’s.

UPDATE: I didn’t watch the debate, but Republican insiders seem to think it was a good night for Romney and Bachmann and a bad night for Pawlenty.

The current fiscal year ends in 17 days, and the leaders who have been negotiating next year’s budget have sent mixed signals in recent days about a possible compromise. Last Wednesday, the Iowa House approved House File 697 on a party-line vote of 54 to 38. The House Journal for June 8 (pdf) includes roll call votes on various amendments and final passage. The 600-page bill includes a budget for two fiscal years and Republican property tax reform plan. Its more controversial provisions include not allowing any growth in K-12 education budgets during the 2012 fiscal year and closing 37 Iowa Workforce Development offices around the state. (UPDATE: Republican State Representative Jason Schultz asserted on June 14 that the House-approved omnibus budget bill requires Iowa Workforce Development to keep all its branch offices open for one more year.) Iowa Senate Democrats have portrayed both of those proposals as deal-breakers and support a higher overall spending target than the $5.99 billion House Republicans approved. Critics have also warned that the changes to commercial property taxes won’t target help to “main street” and small businesses and could force local governments to make big cuts in services.

The omnibus bill didn’t appear to be a promising step toward a budget compromise. Senate Democrats had denounced the proposal as a “Frankenstein” monster. Leading House Democrats sharply criticized the bill after it was approved following less than six hours of debate. Yet on June 9, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen implied that passing House File 697 had been an effective bit of brinksmanship:

“Running the omnibus bill yesterday and sending that over to the Senate had the effect that we were hoping for, and that was it kick-started the negotiations,” said Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, on Thursday after a meeting with Senate leaders that he described as “arguably the most productive meeting we’ve had in two months with the Senate.”

Also on June 9, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal released this statement:

“I am encouraged by negotiations this morning with Republican legislators and the Governor’s staff. We believe that we can reach an agreement that would receive bipartisan support in the Senate and pass the House because it would avert a government shutdown by making spending cuts while still investing in our future.

“In the end, we believe a deal will be possible because Iowans are raising their voices after being empowered with vital, accurate information about the effects of woefully inadequate investments in our schools and other key services.”

Governor Terry Branstad kept his cards close to his chest during a June 10 taping of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program. Click here for the video and full transcript. He praised House Republicans for passing “a comprehensive budget” that includes “critically important” property tax reforms. Regarding a broader agreement, Branstad said, “I’m cautiously optimistic that it can get worked out but there’s a lot of details that have to be worked out.” He declined to be specific about how the government would function if no new budget is approved by the start of the next fiscal year on July 1. All sides in the negotiations insist they are working to prevent a shutdown of some state government services.

Use this thread for any comments about the budget or predictions on how the impasse will be resolved.

UPDATE: Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Robert Dvorsky said in a June 13 statement,

Senate Democrats are eager to resume negotiations with the Governor’s staff and House Republicans this afternoon.

Last week, we took a significant step in the negotiations by agreeing to the general fund spending limit proposed by the House Republicans.

This week, the negotiations will focus solely on the details of each of the separate spending bills.

Assuming agreements can be reached in a timely manner, the final hurdle toward adjournment will be cleared and there will be no state government shutdown.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I’ve been thinking about politically active college students who make the news for reasons other than receiving lewd photos from elected officials.

On June 8, a group of students from the University of Northern Iowa, Iowa State and the University of Iowa testified before the Iowa Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee. The students came to Des Moines to speak against spending cuts for education. The subcommittee’s ranking Republican, State Senator Shawn Hamerlinck, made the hearing newsworthy by telling the group,

“I do not like it when students actually come here and lobby me for funds.  That’s just my opinion. I want to wish you guys the best.  I want you to go home and graduate.  But this political theater, leave the circus to us OK?  Go home and enjoy yourselves.  I want to thank you for joining us and though I have to concede, your time speaking before us is kind of a tad intense.   It’s probably a pretty new experience.  You probably prepared for it for days and you sat there in front of us trying to make sure your remarks were just right, and that’s a good thing.  But actually spending your time worrying about what we’re doing up here, I don’t want you to do that.  Go back home.  Thanks guys.”

We wouldn’t want any civic involvement on our college campuses, would we? Hamerlinck didn’t get the memo: you’re supposed to at least pretend to encourage young people to get involved in the political process. But he stood by his remarks, adding in a statement:

“It saddens me to see bright young Iowa students being misled about our state’s financial situation. Their view of Iowa’s budget is inaccurate and it is my hope that our Regents institutions are educating them on the facts rather than political propaganda.”

I guess Hamerlinck missed the news this week about state revenues coming in strong. It’s incredible that Republicans continue to portray Iowa’s fiscal condition as dire.

Anyway, Senate Democrats spread news of the “go back home” mini-speech through blogs, Facebook, YouTube and e-mail. After the jump I’ve posted a fundraising e-mail blast featuring Hamerlinck’s comments, which I received on June 9. Hamerlinck is considered a rising GOP star, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him run for Congress someday in Iowa’s second district, if he holds his Senate seat. The new Iowa map put Hamerlinck in Senate district 46 (Muscatine and Scott counties), which has a slight Democratic voter registration advantage.

Yesterday I checked out the websites of the College and Young Democrats of Iowa and the Iowa Federation of College Republicans. The front page of the Democratic site features some GOP legislative proposals (cut taxes and spending for higher education and preschool), news from the presidential race and other odds and ends. The front page of the Republican site is full of videos and blog posts about the infamous “F*** OFF” e-mail that a University of Iowa professor sent University of Iowa student Natalie Ginty in April. (Bleeding Heartland discussed that overblown scandal here.) Ginty, who chairs the Iowa college Republican organization, appeared on many national media shows at that time to discuss alleged liberal intolerance on campus.

A group of students from the University of Iowa attended a Board of Regents meeting on June 8 to advocate for phasing out coal combustion at the three state universities. As part of a nationwide Sierra Club campaign, the students delivered signed letters from Iowans and information about the adverse impact of coal.

Rock the Vote released a new analysis this week of how state voting systems serve young Americans. Iowa placed second with a score well above the national average. You can download the full scorecard here (pdf). Iowa gained points in several categories (same-day voter registration, absentee voting, overseas and military voting) thanks to the leadership of former Secretary of State Michael Mauro. We would have lost two points if current Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s voter ID proposal had been enacted.

This is an open thread. Comments on all topics are welcome.

The Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate has rejected only two of Governor Terry Branstad’s nominees this year. One of them, former Department of Human Rights Director Isaiah McGee, started a new job Friday as education program consultant for achievement gaps and student equity at the Iowa Department of Education. Controversy surrounding McGee’s instructions to Human Rights staff and members of certain state commissions hurt the nominee with Senate Democrats. He fell a few votes short of confirmation. McGee stayed in his position at Human Rights until today; state law allows rejected nominees to keep serving for 60 days after the failed confirmation vote. State Department of Education Director Jason Glass “sought out” and offered McGee his new job as a program consultant, Branstad told journalists today. Glass commented,

“I am excited Isaiah will be joining us, because he has numerous talents and knowledge that will benefit the people of Iowa,” Glass said. “He is the exact right person for this job, as we need to continually serve the needs of all students in Iowa. Isaiah is passionate about education and will offer thoughtful solutions to the challenges we face in our educational system, and work to see those solutions through.”

Branstad hasn’t named a permanent director for the Department of Human Rights. Today he appointed Danielle Plogmann as interim director. She handled communications for the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2010 election cycle and early this year, until McGee hired her in March to be his executive assistant. Speaking to reporters today, Branstad twice described Plogmann as “loyal”:

“She has worked there, in the department, and I wanted to have somebody that I thought was loyal and somebody that I thought would work well with everybody.” […]

Branstad is interviewing candidates to take over as the director of the Department of Human Rights and he does not anticipate that Plogmann will be more than a temporary agency chief.

“I think this will be fairly short term,” Branstad said. “But I think she is somebody that I think is loyal and competant and can do the job in the short term and we will have a permanent director named in the near future.”

I’m not clear on what Plogmann’s loyalty (to the governor? to McGee’s vision? to Republican values?) has to do with managing the Department of Human Rights. I hope Branstad appoints a permanent director with a bit more relevant experience.

In related news, this week the governor named Michael Mullins to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Mullins is a registered Republican and has served as a District Court judge since 2002. He replaces Edward Mansfield, whom Branstad appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court in February. Mullins was also on the short list of Iowa Supreme Court candidates the State Judicial Nominating Commission sent to the governor.

Incidentally, one of Branstad’s appointees to the State Judicial Nominating Commission was the other person Iowa Senate Democrats declined to confirm. Branstad’s replacement pick for that position was Jim Kersten, whom the Senate unanimously confirmed last month. A Fort Dodge native, Kertsen served as a Republican member of the Iowa House and Iowa Senate and also as an assistant to Branstad during his earlier tenure as governor. Kersten currently works as Associate Vice President of Development and Government Relations at Iowa Central Community College in Fort Dodge. He recently was one of seven heavy-hitting Iowa Republicans who flew to New Jersey to encourage Governor Chris Christie to run for president.