With about a week left before the latest continuing resolution on federal government spending expires, Congress is nowhere near a budget deal for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. Yesterday the U.S. Senate rejected both a House bill that would cut about $61 billion in spending and an alternative favored by most Democratic senators, which would cut only a few billion in spending before September 30. H.R. 1, the House Republicans’ bill, received 44 yes votes and 56 no votes (roll call). All Democrats voted against the House proposal; the three Republicans who joined them rejected it because in their view, it did not cut federal spending deeply enough. A Democratic amendment offered by Senator Daniel Inouye failed by a wider margin, 42 to 58 (roll call). Eleven Democrats joined all Senate Republicans in rejecting that proposal.

After the jump I’ve posted statements on yesterday’s votes from Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin. Grassley voted for the House Republican proposal and against Inouye’s amendment, while Harkin voted the opposite way.

Today Senate Democratic leaders called on House Republicans to compromise:

“The lesson that Sen. Reid was referring to, the lesson that we’re all referring to, is that H.R. 1 can’t pass, and if you insist on H.R. 1 we’re going to be gridlocked, so give us some alternatives,” [Senator Chuck Schumer] added, in reference to the package of House-passed spending cuts.

Schumer accused Republicans of intransigence and said Boehner must come forward with a new proposal for fiscal 2011 spending levels to avert a government shutdown.

“We are now asking Speaker Boehner to go talk to his 89 freshmen who seem to say they just want H.R. 1 or nothing, show them that that can’t happened and come back and say ‘what are you willing to put on the table,’ ” he said.

Schumer later corrected himself to note there are 87 Republican freshmen in the House.

House Speaker John Boehner told reporters today,

“I think it’s time for them to get serious – and they’re not serious, and it’s time to get serious about cutting spending, and the talks are going to continue but they aren’t going to get very far if they don’t get serious about doing what the American people expect them to do,” Boehner told reporters.

House Republicans are now working on a new three-week continuing resolution, which would cut about $6 billion in current-year spending. It needs to pass by March 18 to avoid a federal government shutdown. Four of Iowa’s five House representatives voted for the last continuing resolution; Steve King rejected it “because some of ObamaCare is funded by it and the Pence amendment to block Planned Parenthood is not in.”

Clark Kauffman has a interesting story in today’s Des Moines Register about William Gustoff, one of Governor Terry Branstad’s two recent appointees to the State Judicial Nominating commission. Apparently it is unprecedented for an Iowa governor to name an attorney to this commission. Gubernatorial appointees are typically non-lawyers, while the State Bar Association selects lawyers to serve. Kauffman noticed something else I didn’t realize about Gustoff:

Gustoff is among four lawyers representing four Iowans in a federal lawsuit against the nominating commission.

Ironically, one of the claims made by the plaintiffs in that case is that the makeup of the commission – half lawyers, half lay people – is biased against nonlawyers because they have no say in the selection of half the commission.

The lawsuit was first filed in December. In February, it was dismissed by a federal judge who said the plaintiffs failed to show a clear violation of their constitutional rights. An appeal is now pending in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gustoff said that although he is listed as the lead attorney for one of the plaintiffs, his involvement in the case was minimal at first and is almost nonexistent now.

“I’m not really that involved in it,” he said. “I haven’t taken any steps to remove myself from the case as the attorney of record. But I am not admitted to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, so I can’t file anything now, and I really have nothing to do with it at this point.”

Gustoff said he’s not a trial lawyer, and his practice is focused on estate planning and nonprofit law. As a result, he said, he will bring to the commission the perspective of an average citizen, rather than that of a typical lawyer.

Asked why, if he specializes in estate planning and nonprofits, he was hired to handle the lawsuit against the commission, Gustoff said he’s not sure. “They got me from somewhere,” he said, laughing. “I don’t know. I never asked them how they got my name.”

Gustoff works in the law firm of Whitaker Hagenow, which is run by Chris Hagenow, a Republican state representative who has sponsored legislation to abolish the Judicial Nominating Commission, and Matt Whitaker, a former Supreme Court applicant who has accused the commission of manipulating the selection of Supreme Court justices.

Neither Hagenow’s bill nor other proposals to change the judicial nominating system made it past the Iowa legislature’s “funnel” deadline last week.

Bleeding Heartland discussed the federal lawsuit against the judicial nominating commission here. The case seems quite weak. It’s telling that the attorneys running the show in this politically-motivated lawsuit selected Gustoff (a partner in a conservative law firm) as opposed to some Iowa attorney with experience in litigation or constitutional law.

Kauffman paraphrases Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht as confirming that the governor picked Gustoff “because of his conservative leanings.” Branstad’s other appointee to the judicial nominating commission is a non-laywer, Helen St. Clair of Melrose. She is presumably related to Maurice St. Clair of Melrose, who donated about $45,000 to Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign. Most of the remaining members of the judicial nominating commission are registered Democrats.

UPDATE: Nathan Tucker calls Kauffman’s article “journalistic malpractice”. Excerpts from his case are after the jump.

This evening, Chris Kirkham with The Huffington Post wrote a scathing article about Ashford University, which is a for-profit college located in Clinton, Iowa that has 76,000 students, 99% of them take classes online.

This online college has been basically robbing students blind, 60% to 70% of people who enroll there drop out and are stuck with huge debts.  What’s worse, the public corporation running the school has been robbing the federal government blind too.  Huffpost reports that nearly 85% of their revenues, nearly $600 million last year, came from the federal government.

Now, you may ask, how is this happening in our backyard without more of an uproar? One reason might be the campaign contributions and political glad handing that the parent company for Ashford University, Bridgepoint Education, has undertaken this past year.

Bridgepoint Education PAC contributed at least $7,250 to Iowa politicians in 2010.  The contributions have been mixed between D’s and R’s, but the Clinton County Republican Central Committee was able to squeeze $350 from their PAC.   Click here to see the Bridgepoint Education PAC campaign finance records.  Bridgepoint Education also invested over $40,000 on lobbyists in 2010.

The Iowa House settled in Wednesday for a long floor debate on the labor bill formerly known as House Study Bill 117, now House File 525 (full text). This bill would sharply restrict collective bargaining rights and end binding arbitration for public employee unions. When the Iowa House Labor Committee considered this bill, Democrats kept lawmakers in session all night, offering dozens of amendments. House Democrats have proposed at least 100 amendments for consideration on the floor, and many legislators are speaking about each one. About six hours into the debate, fewer than ten amendments have been considered. It’s not clear whether the chamber will adjourn later tonight, but even if House members pull another all-nighter, this debate could take days. With a 60-40 majority, Republicans have the votes to pass House File 525 eventually, but it could be an exhausting experience. Senate Democratic leaders have vowed to block the bill in the upper chamber.

Meanwhile, Governor Terry Branstad traveled the state today pushing his message about how Iowa can’t afford to give public employees raises during the next two fiscal years. Statehouse Democrats say that Iowa can afford the new union contracts negotiated by former Governor Chet Culver, if Republicans give up their planned corporate and higher-income tax cuts.

Labor issues were contentious even when Democrats had the trifecta in Iowa. Culver’s 2008 veto of a bill that would have expanded collective bargaining rights caused a lasting rift between him and the state’s labor movement. The following year, six House Democrats stood with Republicans to block a prevailing wage bill, undermining the credibility of the majority leaders. Another Democrat’s opposition to “fair share” legislation prompted an unsuccessful primary challenge in 2010. Now that the political battle in Iowa has shifted to defending rather than expanding labor rights, the Democratic House caucus is more united.

Today’s unusual circumstances in the Iowa House  are nothing compared to the circus unfolding in Wisconsin. Senate Democrats left the state three weeks ago to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to pass an even more restrictive collective bargaining bill. Republicans moved to end the standoff today by supposedly removing the fiscal portions of the labor bill, making it no longer subject to the Wisconsin Senate quorum rules. The chamber then convened and passed the bill in about five minutes with no debate or amendments and only one dissenting vote. However, Democrats claim not all parts of the bill affecting the budget were removed before today’s power play; this pdf file is the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s analysis of the revised bill. There will surely be a legal challenge to passing the bill without a quorum, and some union representatives in Wisconsin are even talking about organizing a general strike.

Any comments about political battles over labor issues are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: The Iowa House adjourned Wednesday night after eight hours of debate on House File 525. The discussion resumes on Thursday; here’s a link to live video.

Senator Tom Harkin issued this statement on the Wisconsin events:

“I am appalled by the actions of the Republicans in Wisconsin.  They trampled over the democratic process, ramming through legislation taking away a fundamental right of Wisconsin’s public servants – the right to organize.  The law has nothing to do with budgets.  It is blatant political scapegoating, and it is shameful.  Our elected leaders at every level of government should be focused on helping working families succeed, not tearing them down.”

Iowa State University Professor Matt Liebman has warned university President Gregory Geoffroy that the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture risks losing its “national and international reputation for excellence in scholarship and service” unless ISU’s administration embraces the center’s mission and removes the it from the supervision of the College of Agriculture. Liebman is a professor of agronomy who holds the Henry A. Wallace Endowed Chair for Sustainable Agriculture. His three-page letter to Geoffroy has been making the rounds in the Iowa environmental community this week. I received it from multiple sources and posted the full text after the jump.

The impending departure of the Leopold Center’s interim director prompted Liebman’s letter. He notes the “rapid turnover” and “absence of stable leadership” at Leopold since 2005, as well as the “failed and controversial national search to fill the director position” last year. Bleeding Heartland covered that fiasco here and here. Following a national search, ISU offered the top job at Leopold to plant pathologist Frank Louws, the preferred candidate of the Iowa Farm Bureau. Corn expert Ricardo Salvador had received higher evaluations from the search committee, but ISU didn’t offer him the job even after Louws turned down the position. Since then, the Leopold Center has had interim leadership with no target date set for another director search.

In his letter to Geoffroy, Liebman said the “sense of uncertainty as to the Center’s future has also created wariness among those who might be applicants for the director’s position if and when a new search is initiated.” He reminded the ISU president that the 1987 Iowa Groundwater Protection Act defined a three-fold mission for the Leopold Center:

(1) identify the negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of existing agricultural practices, (2) research and assist the development of alternative, more sustainable agricultural practices, and (3) inform the agricultural community and general public of the Center’s findings. It is important to recognize that this mandate creates, by design, a dynamic tension between conventional and alternative forms of agriculture. This tension is a healthy part of the Center’s work; it does not indicate the Center is failing to fulfill its mission or communicate effectively. The Center has a particular responsibility to focus on the environmental problems of agriculture and their solution.

In order to “to put the Center back on track and foster circumstances that would be conducive to a national search for a permanent director,” Liebman argued that the ISU administration

needs to demonstrate its unequivocal support for the Leopold Center’s three-part mandate. Specifically, it needs to re-affirm and embrace the Center’s work in defining the shortcomings of current agricultural systems, developing alternatives, and communicating findings. Without a clear indication from the university administration that dissenting opinions about agricultural sustainability are welcome and expected, I think it will be impossible to find a nationally renowned permanent Center director who personifies excellence in scholarship, communication, and service. The absence of a national search would indicate to many observers that the university no longer prioritizes a vibrant and widely respected Leopold Center.

Second, the university administration should move supervision of the Leopold Center to the offices of ISU’s President or Vice President for Research and Economic Development. […] The university would provide more prominence to the Leopold Center and enhance its impact by placing supervision of the Center at a higher administrative level, above the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

ISU’s Dean of Agriculture Wendy Wintersteen was widely criticized last year for her handling of the Leopold Center director search. Not only did she pass over the search committee’s top candidate, she informed Salvador that he did not get the job before her first choice had decided whether to accept the position. Salvador is highly regarded in the sustainable agriculture community and appeared in the documentary “King Corn.”

The Leopold Center’s work deserves more support from the university administration. ISU alumni or others with a connection to the university, please consider adding your voice to those urging Geoffroy to preserve the center’s excellence by increasing its independence.

Iowa’s potential to be the “Saudi Arabia of wind” is widely acknowledged, but the state’s capacity to harness solar power for producing electricity or thermal heating is a better-kept secret. A five-year program to install 300 megawatts of solar power could create nearly 5,000 jobs and add more than $332 million in value to Iowa’s economy, according to a new report commissioned by the Iowa Policy Project, the Iowa Environmental Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Vote Solar Initiative.

After the jump I’ve posted the summary of the new report. Click here to download the full report (18-page pdf).

Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson (known to be cautious about calculating economic impacts) did the analysis for the report.

In his analysis, ISU’s Swenson estimated during the five years of installing 300 MW of solar the average annual impact would be:

• $174 million value added to the economy

• $302 million increased industrial output

• $99 million increased labor income.

Those numbers include sizable indirect effects – spinoff economic effects caused by the initial investment.

“Growth in the solar industry means direct jobs for more than just rooftop installers but also for electricians, builders, contractors, engineers, technicians, financiers, lawyers, marketers and salespeople,” the report stated.

Swenson’s estimate does not include new manufacturing jobs in the solar industry that might be created if Iowa adopted incentives to produce more solar power.

State Senator Joe Bolkcom has introduced a bill to spur more solar installation in Iowa:

Other states have jump-started the growth of solar panel manufacturers by providing tax credits to businesses and homeowners who buy from manufacturers in their states, Bolkcom said.

His proposal in Senate File 99 is not that specific, but it would provide up to $10 million in state-sponsored rebates to home-owners and businesses to help defray the cost of installing solar energy panels. The grants would cover 30 percent of the cost of installation, up to a maximum of $15,000 for farms and businesses and up to $3,000 for residences.

Later this month, the Iowa Policy Project’s David Osterberg is planning to take some state legislators on a tour of solar sites in Waterloo, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. I hope to see bipartisan support for expanding solar power generation here.

So far, the main energy policy moving through the Iowa legislature during the 2011 session relates to nuclear power. In 2010, lawmakers approved a bill to allow MidAmerican Energy “to pass along up to $5 million per year in study expenses to customers for three years” as it studies potential locations for a new nuclear power plant. Now MidAmerican and utility industry groups are pushing “Construction Work in Progress” legislation that “would allow Iowa public utilities to charge ratepayers higher rates now to cover potential future costs of a yet to be constructed nuclear reactor, even if such a reactor is never built.” The Iowa House Commerce Committee unanimously approved one of the bills this week, and a companion bill has support in the Iowa Senate. Paul Deaton explains here and here why these bills are a bad idea. I recommend clicking through to read both posts, but here’s an excerpt:

The State of Georgia may build the first new nuclear plant in 30 years and adopted a CWIP [Construction Work in Progress] . Iowa legislators should study the impact the Georgia CWIP has on ratepayers. Other CWIPs were passed in South Carolina and Florida and they should also be studied. People familiar with the Georgia CWIP say Iowa’s proposed legislation shifts more risk to customers than does Georgia. There are other things to consider regarding CWIPs before the legislature passes one.

It boils down to this. If MidAmerican Energy builds a nuclear power generating station, for each billion dollars in costs, on average, $1,597 will be passed along to each of MidAmerican’s 626,223 Iowa retail customers. Are Iowa households ready for this? Are Iowa households ready to foot the bill knowing that a nuclear power generating station may never be built?

Nuclear power is expensive compared to other methods for generating electricity. It is “not viable” without huge government subsidies and “shifts financial risks to taxpayers.”

Iowa could expand solar power without passing along millions of dollars in costs to utility company customers. Hundreds of megawatts of solar power generating capacity could be brought online in Iowa over a few years, whereas a new nuclear plant would not be completed until 2020. Moreover, a nuclear plant would probably employ several hundred people in one locality. (Iowa’s only existing nuclear power plant employs roughly 500 people in the Palo area.) Ramping up Iowa’s solar capacity could create jobs for thousands of people spread out all over the state, wherever buildings are retrofitted to accommodate solar power.

Any comments about energy policy are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Today’s Des Moines Register contains an outstanding guest piece by Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Click through to read the whole thing. I’ve posted some excerpts below.

The Iowa Secretary of State is fixing to scare off a group of criminals who must be insanely smart. These folks commit their crimes in front of numerous witnesses. They always offer a handwriting sample first. They never get caught. They are so sly, people never even know the crime occurred.

They are Iowa's fraudulent voters.

Deputy of Elections Mary Mosiman was on the radio Monday warning about this crime. She was pinch-hitting for Secretary Schultz, who yanked himself at the very last moment. Was Schultz too embarrassed to finger these elusive voters with Mosiman's evidence? Listen to her case:

“If they did want to commit fraud, they could go in as somebody else, they could vote. They would be long gone before anybody knew about it, assuming that person that was really the voter did not come in. We still wouldn't know because when that actual person came in, the person who committed the fraud so to speak would be gone.”

Yes, unlike dumb criminals, these people leave the scene after they commit their crimes. When asked for actual instances of this crime Mosiman repeated herself:

“Personally, I can say, that if it did occur, we would never know because the person who committed that crime is long gone. Have there been any instances that have been caught and prosecuted? None that I am aware of.”

In other words, “It never happens.” If it had, the Deputy of Elections would be able to cite places and dates rather than baseless fears.

Just consider the risks these criminals take:

*They cannot impersonate a deceased voter because those names are regularly removed from the rolls.

*They cannot impersonate an inactive voter, because inactive voters already must show an ID.

*They cannot impersonate someone who has already voted, because that is a dead giveaway!

*They cannot impersonate someone who shows up later because their signature forgery would be strong evidence against them. (Plus the number of times it has happened would become known by the number of alleged forgeries. So far that number is at zero, even according to Mosiman.)

They must impersonate an active voter who does not actually show up later to vote. It must be one who would not be recognized by any poll worker or poll watcher. See how smart these criminals are! How do they do it?

Since last October, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has been leading a national foreclosure working group involving attorneys general from all 50 states. The group was supposed to investigate “robosigning” and other abuses that led to many wrongful foreclosures. Last week the five largest mortgage servicers in the U.S. received a proposed settlement from Miller’s group, and the American Banker posted the settlement terms here (27-page pdf file). Financial penalties will be determined later; $20 billion seems to be the most likely figure, and it’s not clear how that money will be used.

Miller described the settlement offer as an attempt to “change a dysfunctional system” and “reach an agreement good for banks and good for homeowners.” Many observers charge the deal would do little to correct abuses by mortgage lenders and contains nothing to compensate victims of past misconduct. More details and analysis are after the jump.

Governor Terry Branstad’s latest executive order gives businesses and their advocates new opportunities to pre-empt government regulation of their activities. The governor’s spin on the new order presents it as a way to meet his administration’s job-creation goals:

“Executive Order Seventy-One will ensure that state government’s eyes are affixed on job creation, retention and development when issuing rules and regulations,” said Branstad. “This rule making process will assist in our administration’s goal of creating 200,000 new jobs and putting the roughly 106,000 unemployed Iowans back to work.”

The executive order will identify policies that hurt jobs before they impact job retention and development. […]

“As we travel the state we have heard Iowans voice their concerns over the burdens of bureaucracy that fails to understand the relationship between excessive regulation and job creation,” Branstad added. “Executive Order Seventy-One encourages a job-friendly environment as we build a strong foundation for the future.”

I’ve posted the full text of Executive Order 71 after the jump. It requires all government agencies to prepare a “jobs impact statement” before adopting any new rules and regulations, and to “minimize the adverse impact on jobs and the development of new employment opportunities before proposing a rule.” Furthermore,

Each Agency shall accept comments and information from stakeholders prior to the Jobs Impact Statement. Any concerned private sector employer or self-employed individual, potential employer, potential small business, or member of the public is entitled to submit information relating to Jobs Impact Statement upon a request for information or notice of intended action by a Department or Agency.

So, the governor is instructing agency employees to make “jobs impact” a greater consideration than other public-interest concerns (for example, reducing air pollution that causes life-threatening and costly illnesses, or restricting lending practices that trap consumers in cycles of debt). Furthermore, agency employees need to hear input from “stakeholders” (businesses and business owners) when drafting the jobs impact statements. Also, certain sectors receive privileged status:

The analysis in the Jobs Impact Statement should give particular weight to jobs in production sectors of the economy which includes the manufacturing, and agricultural sectors of the economy and include analysis, where applicable of the impact of the rule on expansion of existing businesses or facilities.

The likely outcome is that “doomsday scenario” analysis from advocacy groups like the Iowa Association of Business and Industry or the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation will now carry new credibility as part of the official “jobs impact statement” issued by state agencies. Any potential rule that manufacturers or agricultural operators view as too “burdensome” will be discarded, regardless of how many other Iowans might benefit.

For as long as I can remember, industry trade groups and lobbyists have exaggerated the potential jobs cost of regulations ranging from the Clean Air Act to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meanwhile, no one is calculating the economic impact of, say, preventable respiratory illnesses in communities with high levels of particulate matter in the air, or making Des Moines Water Works customers pay to clean up pollution agricultural producers create in the Raccoon River Watershed.

Executive Order 71 dovetails with other recent Branstad efforts to increase business leverage against government regulations. All four of his appointees to the Environmental Protection Commission have close ties to agribusiness. The governor is also leaning toward moving Iowa’s water monitoring and water quality protection programs from the Department of Natural Resources to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.

Christie Vilsack stepped down last week as executive director of The Iowa Initiative, the Des Moines Register reported on Sunday:

Vilsack said she was taking a leave of absence to protect the Iowa Initiative from any political implications. With the title, Vilsack also gave up a $127,000 salary. She remains board chairwoman and would be free to resume the directorship should she abandon a political path, she told board members.

Vilsack declined a Register interview request. But she provided a brief written statement that supports the point that her change in status was her choice.

“I didn’t want any speculation about my future to affect the important work of the Iowa Initiative,” Vilsack said in the statement. “As such, I am taking an unpaid leave of absence from the organization.”

Vilsack was also urged by the foundation that finances the group to step down in light of the increased political activity.

Officials with the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, the Iowa Initiative’s sole funding source, sent Vilsack a letter last month asking her to step down out of concern about her political activity’s relationship to the foundation’s tax-exempt status.

The letter was discussed during the Monday meeting [during which Vilsack stepped down] and shared with board members who were not present. Officials with the foundation did not reply to The Des Moines Register’s request for comment.

Stepping down was the right decision for Vilsack. Non-profit organizations with 501(c)3 status cannot endorse political candidates, and it’s safer to avoid any appearance of endorsing a political candidate. Having been involved with 1000 Friends of Iowa during the 2006 election cycle, I remember many people assuming (incorrectly) that the organization was backing Ed Fallon for governor, even though he had resigned as 1000 Friends executive director more than a year before the Democratic primary.

On a different note, I have to say wow, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation has been funding quite a generous salary for a non-profit executive director in Iowa. As far as I know, few staff working for non-profits around here earn six-figure salaries, unless the organization has significant corporate backing.

As of yesterday, former Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson was already listed on the Iowa Initiative’s website as executive director. Perhaps the board of directors had been preparing to replace Vilsack for some time, or they felt it was important to appoint a successor immediately.

While Vilsack continues to lay the groundwork for a possible run for Congress, eight-term Representative Leonard Boswell continues to signal that he is running for re-election again in IA-03. In January Senator Tom Harkin headlined a fundraiser for Boswell’s campaign. Last month Boswell hired experienced campaign operative Julie Stauch to run his district office in Des Moines. This month House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will headline a fundraiser for the incumbent’s campaign at Roxanne Conlin’s home. In a statement to the Des Moines Register, Boswell said:

“Christie [Vilsack] is a good friend of mine and has been for decades. I respect and will defend her right to explore all her options, […] That said, it does not change anything that I am doing. I will be running for re-election and will be running from Polk County.”

A public hearing on the collective bargaining bill under consideration in the Iowa House is likely to be one of the main political events of the week, but there’s much more going on around the state as well. Details are after the jump.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail to let me know of public events that should be included on this calendar.

It was an action-packed week at the state capitol, with Iowa House and Senate committees deciding which non-budget bills merit further consideration and which would be dead for the 2011 session. The full news roundup from the state legislature is coming later this weekend.

Governor Terry Branstad rolled out more than 200 appointments this week. I covered some of them here and here. Look over the governor’s long list and post a comment if I left out any appointees who seem particularly noteworthy.

Here’s an unsurprising story: Senator Tom Harkin is “greatly disappointed” in the White House approach to negotiations over fiscal year 2011 spending:

Harkin said that he objected to the White House’s emphasis on non-security discretionary spending, which is about 12% of the overall budget but has drawn the overwhelming attention of both parties in their efforts to trim the deficit. Neither Democratic or Republican leaders are proposing raising taxes to help bridge the gap. According to Harkin, discretionary spending cuts disproportionately hurt working families by targeting safety net programs and education.

“The White House is wrong on that,” Harkin said. “I want to see proposals like what Bill Clinton did in 1995. He said we’re not going to cut education, we’re not going to cut women, infant, and children programs, we’re just not going to cut those specific things. I want to see the President out there using his bully pulpit…talking about what those specific cuts are out there and then to advocate, saying ‘Look everything is on the table.’” […]

“If we’re going to do this let’s do it fair — one-third mandatory, one-third discretionary, one-third revenue,” he said.

I’m “shocked, shocked” that the Obama administration conceded the heart of the budget cut dispute to the GOP before the serious deal-making began.

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

The new Republican Secretary of State in Indiana has been indicted for voter fraud. His fraudulent voting behavior was not prevented by the state's photo ID law. By the way, here's his photo ID now:

Actually I don't know if he showed his ID card when he voted, but it is required by Indiana law.

Secretary White simply did not live where his vote was cast. But he needed to appear to live there because he was getting paid to represent his old neighborhood on the city council!

Now that this fraud has apparently been perpetrated on the Republican Party of Indiana (it happened in the primary election), what does the man's attorney have to say about it?

“I'm confident that this doesn't rise to the level of a criminal offense. … He had kind of a chaotic personal living situation at the time.”

Money may be the mother's milk of politics, but double standards are the sine qua non. . . . . .also posted at IowaVoters.

Representative Leonard Boswell is the only Iowan on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s new list of 15 “Frontline” House incumbents. Josh Kraushaar notes,

The Frontline program has always been a critical part of the House Democrats’ campaign infrastructure, supporting and expanding their fundraising and outreach operations and offering a signal to the lobbying community who’s the most at risk.

Boswell’s been in the Frontline program every election this past decade. With the exception of 2008, he’s always been a target for Iowa Republicans and/or the National Republican Congressional Committee.

In 2012, Boswell may face Christie Vilsack or other Democratic primary challengers. The DCCC appears to be signaling that they will support him in a primary as well as in a general election.

More incumbents will be added to the Frontline program as new maps are drawn across the country and candidate recruitment takes shape. For now, the DCCC hasn’t put Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) or Dave Loebsack (IA-02) on the vulnerable incumbents’ list, but either could be adversely affected by Iowa’s new four-district map. In 2010 Braley won by the narrowest margin of all the Iowans in Congress, 49.5 percent to 47.5 percent, perhaps with an assist from third-party candidates. Loebsack’s margin of victory, 51 percent to 46 percent, was barely more than Boswell’s 50.8 percent to 46.6 percent win, even though Loebsack’s district had a six-point stronger Democratic lean than IA-03.

While many Iowa politics-watchers expect Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) to run in the newly drawn third district in 2012, he could end up facing Braley or even Loebsack (though that’s far less likely). Wherever he runs, House Speaker John Boehner’s “buddy” will almost surely have the financial backing of the NRCC.

Share any thoughts about the 2012 Congressional races in Iowa in this thread. Braley posted a diary here today about a bill he introduced to reduce the deficit, “end the unnecessary giveaways to Big Oil and provide incentives for renewable fuel producers to expand business and develop new technologies.” A couple of weeks ago, Braley and Latham tangled over legislation that might affect Iowa’s ethanol industry.

UPDATE: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will headline a fundraiser for Boswell’s campaign later this month at Roxanne Conlin’s home in Des Moines.

Governor Terry Branstad announced more than 200 appointees to various state boards and commissions yesterday. He named Dolores Mertz, Brent Rastetter, Eugene Ver Steeg, and Mary Boote to four-year terms on the Environmental Protection Commission.

Mertz retired last year after more than two decades in the Iowa House. She was the most conservative House Democrat and chaired the Agriculture Committee for four years. She was a reliable vote against any attempt to limit pollution from factory farms and regularly assigned such bills to subcommittees that would bury them. Her sons own large hog farms and have been cited for several environmental violations. She also earns income from renting farmland to those operations. On the policy side, last year Mertz fast-tracked a bill that would have undermined new rules on spreading manure over frozen and snow-covered ground. She pushed (unsuccessfully) for a bill that would have given landowners until 2020 to comply with regulations passed in 1997 to prevent water contamination from agricultural drainage wells. Mertz has spoken of her “passion” to advocate for agriculture.

Brent Rastetter gave Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign at least $30,000. He is the owner and CEO of Quality Ag Construction, a company he and his brother Bruce Rastetter created in 1992. Quality Ag Construction’s market niche has been building hog confinement facilities. UPDATE: It’s also worth noting that Bruce Rastetter built a business empire in large-scale hog production and later ethanol. Groups representing agribusiness and biofuels producers are suing the Environmental Protection Commission and the Department of Natural Resources over water quality protection rules.

Ver Steeg was first named to the Environmental Protection Commission by Governor Chet Culver in 2008 for the position on the nine-member body that must be filled by “an active grain or livestock farmer.” Ver Steeg owns a hog farm and is a past president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association.

Boote is a “longtime Republican activist” who founded and runs an organization called Truth About Trade and Technology. The organization’s mission is to “support free trade and agricultural biotechnology.” It is primarily funded by “U.S. agribusinesses, farm organizations and individuals.” Boote has served as executive director of Truth About Trade and Technology for the past decade, so her income depends on the business organizations supporting the group.

Many in the environment-minded community criticized Culver in 2007, when he replaced four strong members of the Environmental Protection Commission with two people who had background in conservation and two who had close ties to agribusiness. Culver later named other supporters of protecting natural resources to the EPC, notably Shearon Elderkin and Carrie La Seur.

I don’t see any balance in Branstad’s appointees. That doesn’t bode well for the future work of the Environmental Protection Commission, charged with providing policy oversight over Iowa’s environmental protection efforts.

After the jump I’ve posted the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement’s statement on the new EPC appointees. Iowa CCI has sought to monitor compliance with new rules on spreading manure over farmland during the winter.  

The U.S. Senate approved a two-week continuing resolution on spending today by a vote of 91 to 9 (roll call). The House of Representatives passed the same resolution yesterday to avert a federal government shutdown. Previous legislation on fiscal year 2011 spending expires on March 4. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley was among the large bipartisan majority supporting today’s bill. Tom Harkin was one of the few dissenting votes (five Republicans, three Democrats and independent Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats).

Explaining his vote, Harkin said,

I voted against this proposal not because I want to see the government shut down, but because this is not the right way to budget: Congress should not keep the government open in two-week increments with proposals that slash funding for priorities such as education or unfairly target the most vulnerable.  

My primary concern with this specific proposal stems from my concern about the economy overall, which is greatly threatened by Republican budget cuts that economists agree will kill jobs and increase the odds of a double-dip recession.   I am also troubled by the substantial cuts to education programs.  This amounts to significant funding cuts that hurt kids, especially the neediest kids, some of our Title I schools and others.

I’ve posted the full statement from Harkin after the jump. Grassley’s office has not yet released a statement on the continuing resolution, but if one appears I will add it to this post.

Yesterday four Iowa representatives in the House voted for the continuing resolution. Steve King (R, IA-05) voted no “because some of ObamaCare is funded by it and the Pence amendment to block Planned Parenthood is not in.”

I can’t think of any other legislation on which Tom Harkin and Steve King voted one way, and the rest of the Iowa delegation in Congress voted the other way. If you know of any examples, please post them in the comments.

Signs of Iowa’s poor water quality are not hard to come by. Our state has more than 400 “impaired waters.” The Des Moines Water Works has the largest nitrate removal system in the world, because “the Raccoon River has the highest average nitrate concentration of any of the 42 largest tributaries in the Mississippi River Basin.” Even so, the Water Works sometimes struggles to handle high levels of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) in the Raccoon River, forcing the water treatment facility to draw from a secondary source. Iowa watersheds are also a major contributor to the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, and the nutrients from “Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from commercial fertilizers and animal manure from farmland were the biggest contributing sources” of the excess nutrients that cause the dead zone.  

Despite those facts, Governor Terry Branstad and many state legislators have claimed the Iowa Department of Natural Resources takes too tough a stand in enforcing pollution rules. Branstad’s draft budget cut funding for the DNR. The department was a frequent punching bag at Republican-led forums around Iowa last month, designed to spotlight supposedly burdensome regulations on businesses.  

Branstad has expressed hope for a “change in attitude” at the DNR. He sent a strong signal by appointing Roger Lande as the new DNR director. Lande is a former head of the Association for Business and Industry and a partner in a Muscatine law firm that has represented the Iowa Farm Bureau as well as corporations like Monsanto.

Announcing Lande’s appointment, Branstad said,

“I can think of no one better to be a steward of Iowa’s precious natural resources than Roger Lande,” said Gov.-elect Branstad. “Roger and his family have long been champions of conservation of Iowa’s rivers, woodlands, greenways, prairies and trails and I am confident that Roger will excel in his new role as head of Iowa Department of Natural Resources.”

Apparently Branstad has now thought of someone better than Lande to handle water quality programs and Clean Water Act compliance: Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey. Yes, even though runoff from conventional agriculture is a leading cause of Iowa’s poor water quality, Branstad thinks the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) might be better-suited to handle water monitoring and protection than the DNR. Some Iowa House Republicans are pushing House Study Bill 180, which would transfer the same authority to IDALS. Unfortunately, it won’t be enough to stop this measure in the Iowa House or Senate, because Branstad has the power to transfer functions to Northey’s agency without enabling legislation.

After the jump I’ve posted background on this issue from Iowa Rivers Revival and the Iowa Environmental Council, as well as contact information for state legislators and the governor’s office. The Iowa Environmental Council posted a link to their action alert here.

Iowa already does too little to limit water pollution. If Northey is put in charge of protecting water quality, get ready for more impaired waters and major algae blooms. Northey marches in lockstep with the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, one of three plaintiffs in a state lawsuit seeking to nullify the most significant water quality rules adopted in Iowa during the past decade.

In related news, the American Farm Bureau Federation has filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.

The farm lobby has made it clear it sees the cleanup effort as a harbinger of more far-reaching EPA requirements across the country, including in the Mississippi River basin, where chemical runoff from industrial farms is swept to the Gulf of Mexico. […]

“This new EPA approach will not end with the Chesapeake Bay,” Bob Stallman, the Farm Bureau’s president, said in an address early this month. “EPA has already revealed its plan to follow suit in other watersheds across the nation, including the Mississippi watershed. That is why our legal effort is essential to preserving the power of the states – not EPA – to decide whether and how to regulate farming practices in America’s watersheds.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

The House of Representatives approved a two-week continuing resolution today by a bipartisan vote of 335 to 91. If approved by the Senate, the continuing resolution gives members of Congress more time to strike a deal on spending during the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. The previous spending resolution is set to expire on March 4, and leaders in both parties have said they are not seeking a shutdown of the federal government. The roll call shows that Steve King (IA-05) was one of only six House Republicans to vote against the continuing resolution. Tom Latham (IA-04) was among 231 Republicans who voted in favor. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03) were all among the 104 House Democrats who voted for the continuing resolution. The 85 Democrats who voted no included representatives from all wings of the party, but primarily members of the Progressive caucus, Congressional Black Caucus or Hispanic Caucus.

Pete Kasperowicz reports for The Hill,

More Democrats voted for the measure, which would reduce spending by $4 billion over the next two weeks, than against it, despite criticism of the GOP proposal ahead of the vote by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic leader and former Speaker.

Democratic leaders were divided. Pelosi voted no, but House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) voted for it. Democratic leaders urged their members to vote against the rule for the bill, but did not urge their members to vote against the spending measure itself.

I don’t have details on the $4 billion in cuts, but according to Raven Clabough, “Many of the cuts are from programs that President Obama has called for eliminating and the rest of the savings comes from ending the practice of earmarks.”

Before the final vote today,

the House voted on an amendment proposed by Representative William Keating that would eliminate taxpayer-funded subsidies to oil companies, a measure that failed by a vote of 176 to 249.

The roll call shows that vote went primarily along party lines. All House Republicans present (including Latham and King) voted against ending subsidies to oil companies. Boswell, Loebsack and Braley were among the 176 Democrats who voted to save money by cutting those subsidies.

UPDATE: As of Tuesday evening, only Braley’s office had released comments on today’s House votes. I’ve posted them after the jump. Like other recent statements by Braley, they emphasize the need to reduce the federal deficit.

SECOND UPDATE: King posted on his Twitter feed, “I will vote “NO” on the two week CR because some of ObamaCare is funded by it and the Pence amendment to block Planned Parenthood is not in.” Representative Michele Bachmann, a close ally of King who is considering running for president, voted against the continuing resolution for the same reasons.

Governor Terry Branstad announced some important personnel decisions in the past few days, naming former State Representative Libby Jacobs to chair the Iowa Utilities Board and three new members of the Board of Regents, including Bruce Rastetter.

Follow me after the jump for more on those and other Branstad administration appointments.

UPDATE: On March 1 President Barack Obama named Branstad to co-chair the Council of Governors, “established by the National Defense Authorization Act in 2008 to strengthen further partnership between the Federal and State governments as it pertains to national security.” Branstad will serve a two-year term as co-chair.

SECOND UPDATE: Branstad announced more than 200 appointments to state boards and commissions on March 2. Bleeding Heartland covered the four appointees to the Environmental Protection Commission here; all have ties to large agribusiness.

Another name that caught my eye was Eric Goranson, a lobbyist and parochial schools advocate whom Branstad named to the State Board of Education. He has been a leading critic of the Iowa Core Curriculum (see here and here). The Under the Golden Dome Blog argues that Goranson’s appointment may violate Iowa code, which states, “A voting member [of the Board of Education] shall not be engaged in professional education for a major portion of the member’s time nor shall the member derive a major portion of income from any business or activity connected with education.” Several of Goranson’s lobbying clients represent religious private schools or Christian home-schooling parents.

THIRD UPDATE: I forgot to mention Branstad’s two appointees to the State Judicial Nominating Commission: Helen St. Clair of Melrose and William Gustoff of Des Moines. I have been unable to find any information about Helen St. Clair, but a Maurice St. Clair of Melrose was among Branstad’s top 20 individual donors, contributing more than $45,000 to the gubernatorial campaign. I assume he is related to Helen St. Clair and will update this post if I confirm that. William Gustoff is a founding partner of the Whitaker Hagenow law firm, which includes Republican former U.S. attorney Matt Whitaker and State Representative Chris Hagenow. Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley also worked at Whitaker Hagenow last year.

Spring is coming to Iowa soon, judging from the snowdrops my son spotted coming up a few days ago, but it’s still soup weather in my book. Tonight I’m making a lower-fat version of the Thai coconut soup called tom kha kai. You’ll need to visit an Asian grocery for a few ingredients, or order them online, but other than that, the soup is very fast and easy to prepare.

My recipe is adapted from Nancie McDermott’s book Real Vegetarian Thai, which I highly recommend for omnivores as well as vegetarians. I used one can of coconut milk instead of the two cans McDermott calls for, and I substituted low-fat coconut milk. That makes the soup a lot less rich but also cuts the fat and calorie count way down. I also left out one can of straw mushrooms and 1/2 cup chopped fresh cilantro, because I am one of those people who doesn’t like the taste of cilantro.

This dish is suitable for vegans and can be gluten-free, depending on the kind of soy sauce or tamari you use. Any orange winter squash or sweet potatoes can be substituted for butternut, and if you’re using mushrooms, shiitake or portobello could be substituted for straw mushrooms (add to soup pot along with squash).

The full recipe is after the jump.