A bill to extend parts of the PATRIOT Act fell seven votes short of passage in the House of Representatives yesterday. A summary at OpenCongress.org explains that this bill

Extends three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are set to expire on February, 28, 2011. They include the authority for “roving” wiretaps that allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists, the “tangible records provision” that requires banks, telecoms and libraries to hand over any customer information the government requests without informing the customer, and the “lone wolf” provision allowing the government to track international terrorist groups. These would be extended straight up — i.e. no reforms — and would expire again under the bill on December 8, 2011.

Although 277 House members voted for the bill and only 148 opposed it, the measure failed because it had been brought to the floor under special rules that limit debate but require a two-thirds majority. The roll call shows that 67 Democrats voted with the majority of the Republican caucus in favor of the PATRIOT Act extension, but 26 Republicans voted with most of the Democratic caucus against the bill.

Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no yesterday, while Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted yes. In all likelihood this bill will pass later this month when House leaders bring it to the floor under normal rules, requiring only 218 yes votes to pass.

Boswell’s vote yesterday is consistent with his record in this area. He voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001 and its extension in 2005. He also voted with most House Republicans on the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2008. Last year, Boswell voted for another PATRIOT Act extension bill that Loebsack and Braley opposed.

If Boswell faces a Democratic primary challenge in the new third Congressional district in 2012, his voting record on government surveillance may become a campaign issue. During his 2008 primary race against Ed Fallon, Boswell temporarily changed his stand on the FISA Act. He reverted to his original position after winning the primary.

The Iowa Environmental Council, Sierra Club and the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center are intervening in a lawsuit seeking to throw out new water quality rules for Iowa. The State Environmental Protection Commission approved the “antidegradation” rules in December 2009, and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources adopted the rules last year. Immediately following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the rules, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and Iowa Water Environment Association sued, claiming two EPC members should not have been able to vote on the rules, and that the rules violate an Iowa ban on environmental regulations that are stricter than federal standards. The Iowa Attorney General’s Office is representing the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Commission in the lawsuit.

The Iowa Environmental Council, Sierra Club and Environmental Law and Policy Center sought to intervene to ensure that the antidegradation standards will not be relaxed. On February 3, a Polk County district judge approved the groups’ request, saying “the applicants for intervention are environmental groups that have been active in the administrative process and it would be more than beneficial to have their input as intervenors in this case.” After the jump I’ve posted an IEC press release containing more background information.

UPDATE: From an IEC action alert on February 8:

Once again, groups that represent wastewater dischargers are urging legislators to take action to eliminate or weaken Iowa rules that protect water quality.

The Iowa League of Cities and the Rural Water Association are asking lawmakers, who serve on the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee, to repeal Iowa’s anti-degradation rules. Anti-degradation rules are required by the federal Clean Water Act and are designed to stop further degradation of the rivers, streams and lakes.

Please contact the Legislators who serve on this committee to let them know how important these rules are to protect Iowa’s waters.

Click here for a list of committee members and here for background information and a link to send a letter to lawmakers.

Civic Skinny’s latest column at the Des Moines weekly Cityview leads with a warning for Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley. Citing “top people in both parties,” Skinny speculates that “powerful party forces – and that’s code for Ed Failor Jr.’s Iowans for Tax Relief” want to replace McKinley with “one of their own – and that probably means Bill Dix […]”

Follow me after the jump for Skinny’s case as well as some additional supporting evidence and background on Dix, Iowans for Tax Relief, and longstanding Republican discontent with McKinley.

Someone I follow on Twitter posted this during the Superbowl:

Two y/o mistook me yelling at the interception as telling her to “get out of here” still crying.

A helpful reminder that young children are often more tuned in to our tone of voice than to what we say to them–or not even to them, but what we say out loud while they happen to be in the room.

My younger son is particularly sensitive to tone and has been known to say “Stop shouting at me” when I wasn’t yelling, just speaking in an irritated or exasperated voice.

Speaking more gently and patiently around my kids is my perennial new year’s resolution. Any helpful tips along these lines are welcome in this thread.

Last week the non-profit organization Smart Growth America released a report on “how successful states have been in creating jobs with their flexible $26.6 billion of transportation funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA).” The report demonstrates that “the states that created the most jobs were the ones that invested [stimulus funds] in public transportation projects and projects that maintained and repaired existing roads and bridges. The states that spent their [stimulus] funds predominantly building new roads and bridges created fewer jobs.”

Table 2 of the full report (pdf file) ranks the states in terms of percentage of road spending allocated to “system preservation” (road and bridge repair) versus building new capacity. Here Iowa did well, spending 93 percent of the stimulus road money on repair work. Iowa ranked 12th in this category; seven states and Washington, DC spent 100 percent of their ARRA road funds on repair.

Iowa didn’t score as well (30th place) on Smart Growth America’s list of states by the percent of stimulus transportation funding spent on public transit or non-motorized projects. Just 3.5 percent of Iowa’s transportation stimulus money went to such projects. That’s not surprising; it has long been difficult to persuade Iowa policy-makers to invest more in passenger transit, even though we have an aging population, and many older Americans want alternatives to driving. A long-range transportation funding plan adopted in 2008 didn’t require a single extra dollar to be spent on public transit in Iowa. The Republican-controlled Iowa House has already voted to scrap funding that would help bring passenger rail service to Iowa City, and Governor Terry Branstad didn’t include passenger rail funding in his draft budget for the next two years.

After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from the full report, which explain why repair and transit projects create more jobs per dollar spent. A memo about the recent opinion poll findings references below can be downloaded here (pdf).

Smart Growth America’s latest study didn’t assess the rate at which states turned around their stimulus transportation funding to create jobs. A 2009 study by the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee showed that Iowa was the second-best state in terms of allocating stimulus road funds quickly. At the end of July 2009, 85.1 percent of the $358 million Iowa received for highway and bridge projects was under contract, and 74.9 percent was for projects already underway. Those percentages were more than double the national average.  

Sunday, February 6 would have been Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday, and the occasion will be marked by a graveside ceremony in California and a tribute video to be aired during the Superbowl. I try not to speak ill of the dead, but I honestly struggle to think of anything Reagan did that benefited the country, besides signing the arms control treaty with the USSR. Not only was he nowhere near one of the great presidents, his main legacy was massive income inequality. He cut programs aimed at helping the poor and demonized welfare recipients successfully, paving the way for the welfare reforms of the 1990s. I disliked Reagan’s politics so much that Barack Obama’s rhetorical similarity to the Gipper was a big reason I never could warm up to Obama’s “inspiring” speeches.

The Reagan-worship in today’s Republican Party is comical. If Reagan were a candidate today, he’d be assailed as a “RINO” for his tax-raising, big-spending policies. Yes, Reagan raised many taxes as governor and as president, not that many Republicans would admit that today. At Think Progress, Alex Seitz-Wald published “10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan,” and one of them was news to me, even though I remember the 1980s well: “Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. […] The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency.”

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

UPDATE: I like Robert Borosage’s post on “The Reagan Ruins.”

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user Clarknt67 on Reagan’s years-long non-response to the AIDS epidemic.

Excerpt from the post.culture.shock blog

When I was in middle school, I earned spare money by babysitting for a lot of the neighborhood kids. One of the parents I was employed by was Kim Pearson, one of the sponsors of the bill in the Iowa House to amend the Constitution to ban not only gay marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships. This is my letter to her. (edited somewhat with the recognition that this is now going to a lot of folks who don’t know me as well as Kim did, and who likely don’t care what I’ve been up to since I spent a summer taking care of her kids)

Iowa received the overall top ranking in a new report on the health care system in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation supporting research on health care issues and policies to achieve “better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society’s most vulnerable.” Researchers who compiled the 2011 state scorecard uncovered huge disparities in terms of access to care, health care quality, and health outcomes:

There is a twofold or greater spread between the best and worst states across important indicators of access and affordability, prevention and treatment, and potential to lead healthy lives (Exhibit 1). The performance gaps are particularly wide on indicators assessing developmental screening rates, provision of mental health care, hospitalizations because of asthma, prevalence of teen smoking, and mortality rates among infants and children. Lagging states would need to improve their performance by 60 percent on average to achieve benchmarks set by leading states.

If all states were to improve their performance to levels achieved by the best states, the cumulative effect would translate to thousands of children’s lives saved because of more accessible and improved delivery of high-quality care. In fact, improving performance to benchmark levels across the nation would mean: 5 million more children would have health insurance coverage, nearly 9 million children would have a medical home to help coordinate care, and some 600,000 more children would receive recommended vaccines by the age of 3 years.

Leading states-those in the top quartile-often do well on multiple indicators across dimensions of performance; public policies and state/local health systems make a difference. The 14 states at the top quartile of the overall performance rankings generally ranked high on multiple indicators and dimensions (Exhibit 2). In fact, the five top-ranked states-Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire-performed in the top quartile on each of the four dimensions of performance. Many have been leaders in improving their health systems by taking steps to cover children or families, promote public health, and improve care delivery systems.

Iowa was the top-performing state in just one category: percentage of young children receiving all recommended doses of the six key vaccines. However, Iowa’s relatively high scores (among the top 5 states on nine indicators and in the top quartile for 14 indicators) made our state number one overall and in the “prevention and treatment” subgroup, number two in “potential to lead healthy lives” subgroup, and number six in the “access and affordability” subgroup. More detail on Iowa’s rankings can be found on this chart. To compare Iowa to other states, use this interactive map or download the full report here.

The new report’s executive summary highlights the benefits of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (generally known as SCHIP):

The Scorecard’s findings on children’s health insurance attest to the pivotal role of federal and state partnerships. Until the start of this decade, the number of uninsured children had been rising rapidly as the levels of employer-sponsored family coverage eroded for low- and middle-income families. This trend was reversed across the nation as a result of state-initiated Medicaid expansions and enactment and renewal of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Currently, Medicaid, CHIP, and other public programs fund health care for more than one-third of all children nationally. Children’s coverage has expanded in 35 states since the start of the last decade and held steady even in the middle of a severe recession. At the same time, coverage for parents-lacking similar protection-deteriorated in 41 states.

SCHIP used to be a favorite punching bag for Representative Steve King, who voted against funding what he called “Socialized Clinton style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.” Fortunately, the majority in Congress recognized this program’s potential.

After the jump I’ve posted a sidebar from the general summary of the Commonwealth Fund’s report, called “Iowa’s Comprehensive Public Policies Make a Difference for Children’s Health.” I also included some methodological notes and listed the 20 indicators measured by researchers.

Clerking for a state legislator is a great first job in politics, but here’s a warning to the young and politically involved: sharing your personal views on Facebook can get you fired. Tyler Kingkade has the story at the Iowa State Daily:

Jessica Bruning didn’t think her personal stance on political issues would jeopardize her position as a clerk with Rep. Renee Schulte, R-Linn, in the Iowa legislature. However, after a Facebook post bucked the Republican party’s stance on the impeachment of the state Supreme Court justices, she quickly found herself out of a job.

She had been told to “tone it down” after the State of the Judiciary speech by Chief Justice Mark Cady, where she took part in standing ovations along with Democrats.

During the 2010 election season, Bruning worked for the Branstad-Reynolds campaign but often shared information on Facebook about Justice Not Politics – a bipartisan group formed to advocate retention of the justices. […]

Bruning continued to share articles and information in support of the justices after the elections as House Republicans began talk of impeaching the remaining judges.

But after a Facebook post in January, the next thing Bruning knew she was let go from her position as a clerk. She said she currently cannot go into further details on the event.

Technically, the Iowa House Republican caucus isn’t committed to impeaching the four remaining justices who concurred in the Varnum v Brien ruling on marriage. In fact, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich “we want to drive procreation” Anderson has said he doubts articles of impeachment would clear his committee. Nevertheless, I’m not surprised that Bruning got fired by criticizing the impeachment drive, especially after she stood up to applaud Chief Justice Cady. His speech wasn’t warmly received by the House Republican caucus.

To me, the most surprising thing about this story is that Bruning was hired as a clerk for Schulte despite having criticized the anti-retention drive during the campaign. To my knowledge, not a single Iowa GOP lawmaker or legislative candidate advocated voting to retain the three Supreme Court justices on the ballot. Speaking to Kingkade,

Bruning said young people are often told throughout their years in school to get involved and voice their opinion, “Then when I post a simple Facebook status, I get fired. They’re conflicting messages.”

That’s the way the cookie crumbles if your Facebook status goes against your political party’s dominant view. If Bruning had been lambasting the justices on social media, or bashing impeachment while clerking for a Democratic state representative, she’d still have a job today.

UPDATE: Schulte disputes Bruning’s account but declined to specify why the clerk was sacked:

Two weeks ago, Schulte gave The Des Moines Register a brief statement about Bruning’s assertion, deferring additional questions to House Republican leadership.

“The short answer is no,” she was not fired for supporting same-sex marriage rights, Schulte told the Register. “Basically she’s an at-will employee. It could be for any reason. It makes me sad that she thinks that that’s why.”

It’s been a while since the Bleeding Heartland community discussed a possible 2012 primary between Representative Leonard Boswell and Christie Vilsack. Everywhere I go in Polk County, Democrats are talking about this race, so I thought it’s time for a new thread on the subject.

Last week Politico’s Alex Isenstadt reported that Vilsack “has been meeting with top state labor leaders, party strategists and donors as she gauges support and maps out a potential House campaign.” A bunch of Iowa insiders and Vilsack loyalists told Isenstadt about the former first lady’s strengths as a candidate. She’s good on the stump, has high name recognition and could raise a lot of money quickly. She refused to comment for his article, but Boswell told Isenstadt that he has informed Vilsack “that he had no plans to retire and that he would run again in his Polk County political base.”

Most Polk County Democrats I’ve spoken to expect Vilsack to run against Boswell in the new third Congressional district rather than in the redrawn second district, likely to contain Vilsack’s hometown Mount Pleasant. I would be surprised to see her run against Dave Loebsack in IA-02, but it could happen if the new IA-03 has a strong Republican tilt (say, containing lots of counties to the south and west of Polk but not Democratic-leaning Story, Marshall and Jasper counties). In that case, a primary against Loebsack could be more appealing than a general election against Tom Latham. I don’t have a good sense of the activist base’s commitment to Loebsack in IA-02, so I hope Bleeding Heartland readers who live in the area will weigh in. I believe many activists in IA-03 are ready for a change and would support a new candidate in a primary against Boswell.

Vilsack would be a much tougher opponent for Boswell than Ed Fallon was in 2008. The entire Democratic establishment and most allied groups like organized labor supported Boswell against Fallon. Some Democratic activists thought Fallon was unelectable or refused to consider supporting him because he had endorsed Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign in 2000. In addition, Fallon was unable to match the incumbent in fundraising.

Christie Vilsack has none of Fallon’s baggage and should have no trouble raising enough money to make the race competitive. She may even raise more than Boswell, who had just $65,276 in his campaign account at the end of 2010. (No word on how much Boswell raised at his big campaign fundraiser last month, featuring Senator Tom Harkin.) Although Boswell has a good record on women’s issues, many activists would be excited about making Vilsack the first Iowa woman to go to Congress.

During the 2008 primary, Boswell’s campaign kept Fallon on the defensive, questioning his ethics and slamming his record on ethanol and meth. The Nader trump card was played again and again. Boswell is good at “winning ugly,” as he showed last year against Brad Zaun. But I don’t see how he goes hard negative against Vilsack in a primary. My sense is that would backfire.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Who would have the edge in a Boswell-Vilsack primary? How bad would the IA-03 map have to be to send Vilsack running against Loebsack on more friendly Democratic turf?

UPDATE: On February 3 Boswell announced the hiring of Julie Stauch as his Iowa chief of staff, beginning in March. (Sally Bowzer recently retired from the position.) Stauch is a veteran Iowa political operative and managed Boswell’s 2002 re-election campaign. In 2004, she managed Lois Murphy’s unsuccessful challenge to a Republican Congressional incumbent in Pennsylvania. In 2006, she managed Mazie Hirono’s successful Congressional bid in Hawaii. Most recently, Stauch has been chief public affairs officer for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

FEBRUARY 4 UPDATE: Senator Harkin seems to be trying to discourage Vilsack:

“I don’t see that happening,” Harkin says. […]

“Look, I have great respect for Christie Vilsack. I’ve known [her] a long time,” Harkin says.  “Since I’m so heaviy into education, here’s someone who has been in education all her life, so I have a lot of respect for her and her abilities. She has a lot of talent and a lot of support in the state of Iowa, but I do not see a primary with her and Congressman Boswell.”

Proud to be an Iowan. Period. Thanks Zach.

After a crowded public hearing last night and about three hours of floor debate today, the Iowa House approved House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban all legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Iowa. All 59 Republicans present voted for the amendment, as did three House Democrats who represent rural districts: Kurt Swaim, Dan Muhlbauer and Brian Quirk. The bill now goes to the Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has pledged to keep it from receiving a floor vote.

Many of the 37 House Democrats who voted no on the amendment took to the floor to speak out against the bill. You can read excerpts from their remarks here, here, here and here. (UPDATE: Several of the House Democrats’ speeches from the chamber are on YouTube as well.)

In contrast, only a few Republicans gave prepared remarks supporting the amendment, including lead sponsor Dwayne Alons (rarely afraid to say something ridiculous) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson. Anderson justified the amendment as serving the state’s interest in promoting childbearing:

“We want to drive procreation into a stable relationship and procreation only happens between a male and a female. See a male and a female can do something that a homosexual couple cannot: They can create children accidently. That’s the issue. It’s not about love. It’s not about romance. It’s about driving state policy toward responsible procreation.”

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed and rejected that argument on pages 59 and 60 of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Anderson also raised the familiar “slippery slope” concern that legal same-sex marriage would lead to state recognition of incestuous and polygamous unions. No one’s tried to do that in the other four U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages, or in Canada or any of the European countries that do the same.

Given how strongly the Republican base supports overturning same-sex marriage rights, I was surprised more Republicans weren’t eager to explain their votes on the House floor. Tea party favorites Kim Pearson and Glen Massie even declined to yield to a question from Democrat Nathan Willems on whether the equal protection clause applies to all Iowans. House Majority Whip Erik Helland “answered” Willems’ question, but in a non-responsive way.  

It got me wondering: deep down, are they not proud of what they’re doing? Perhaps some of them secretly agree with former Republican State Senator Jeff Angelo, who has changed his position on marriage equality and now views a constitutional amendment as “government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens.” Rarely do legislators vote to change the constitution, and Iowa has never before approved an amendment to limit the rights of citizens. If House Republicans believe the public interest demands putting minority rights up for a majority vote, they owe us compelling arguments.

Politically, it was probably wise for House Republicans to keep quiet during today’s debate. Many must realize that they’re on the wrong side of history, as public opinion polls show increasing support for same-sex marriage rights. A “loud and proud” statement for the public record supporting this bill could be embarrassing 10 or 20 years from now.

Still, I wonder if voting for House Joint Resolution 6 will ever become a political liability for any of today’s Republican lawmakers. During the 1980s and 1990s, decades-old opposition to school desegregation or other policies of the civil rights era occasionally became a campaign issue. I remember many politicians apologizing for things they said or votes they took in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate John McCain felt compelled to admit he had been “wrong” to oppose a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

After the jump I discuss a half-dozen members of the Iowa House Republican caucus who may one day wish they’d had the courage to be out in front accepting marriage equality.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson struck down last year’s health insurance reform law yesterday, backing the lawsuit filed by Florida’s attorney general and joined by 25 other states. Vinson’s 78-page opinion can be read in full here. David Kopel summarized the key points at the Volokh Conspiracy blog:

1. The 26 states lose on the argument that the mandate for drastically increased state spending under Medicaid is unconstitutional. State participation in Medicaid always has been voluntary, and remains so. […]

2. The plaintiffs win on the individual mandate. The individuals plaintiffs, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have standing to challenge the mandate. So do Utah and Idaho, at the least, because of state statutes forbidding health insurance mandates. According to original meaning, “commerce” was trade. Citation to Randy Barnett. Even the modern precedents require “activity” as a predicate for commerce clause regulation.[…]

3. Necessary & proper does not save the mandate. […]

4. The mandate is not severable from the health control act. Defendants themselves have argued forcefully that the mandate is absolutely essential to the entire regulatory scheme. There is no severability clause. The mandate is tightly integrated into the entire act. […]

6. The entire act is declared void. […] Of course the 11th Circuit might grant a stay, and Judge Vinson might also do so, but as of right now, there is no stay.

The White House immediately made clear that the federal government will continue to implement the Affordable Care Act. I would be shocked if the U.S. Court of Appeals doesn’t grant a stay of Vinson’s ruling, especially since two other U.S. district court judges ruled last year that the individual mandate is constitutional. Vinson’s ruling went further than U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson’s decision in December, which struck down the federal requirement that individuals purchase health insurance but let the rest of the law stand. Click here for links to numerous reactions to Vinson’s ruling. Legal analyst Ilya Somin finds the judge’s reasoning persuasive, while Orin Kerr argues that Vinson erred by going against precedent (Supreme court case law). Dave Weigel explains how Congressional Democrats failed to include a standard severability clause in this legislation. Brian Beutler notes that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (one of the most conservative members of the high court) recently struck down a single provision of a law that lacked a severability clause.

Representative Steve King (IA-05), a champion of efforts to repeal health insurance reform, was jubilant about yesterday’s news: “Many of us opposed ObamaCare in part because of our oath to the Constitution. Any member who had reservations should now be empowered to vote with those of us who will cut off all funding to ObamaCare starting with the continuing resolution.” The full text of King’s press release is after the jump.

Iowa State Senator Jack Hatch blasted Vinson’s “blatant judicial overreach” and expressed confidence that courts will ultimately uphold the federal law. Hatch chairs the Working Group of State Legislators for Health Reform and joined more than 70 state lawmakers who filed a “friend of the court” brief in the Florida case supporting the constitutionality of the law. The full press release from Progressive States Network and the Working Group of State Legislators for Health Reform is after the jump.

Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley didn’t release any statement on Vinson’s ruling, which surprised me, since both quickly reacted to Hudson’s ruling against the individual mandate in December. Yesterday Harkin publicized the first in a series of Senate HELP Committee hearings about “the tangible, positive impact that [health insurance] reform is having on Americans’ lives.”

Governor Terry Branstad joined the plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit two weeks ago (disregarding Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s opinion). I was surprised not to see any statement from the Branstad administration on Judge Vinson’s ruling yesterday. I will update this post with further Iowa reaction as it becomes available.

UPDATE: Through the governor’s Twitter account, Branstad’s communications director Tim Albrecht said released this statement:

“This health care law is clearly not sustainable nor is it affordable for the long-term. I believe it would be appropriate for both parties to start over and advance a plan that is more workable.”

When I asked how questions about whether the law is sustainable or affordable related to the constitutional matters at hand (judge rejecting argument against Medicaid expansion but accepting case against individual mandate), Albrecht added, “The governor continues to believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional.” To my knowledge, Branstad has not publicly acknowledged that a few years ago he supported a state mandate to purchase health insurance.

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty visited Iowa again over the weekend. He worked the room at a Christian bookstore in Ankeny before addressing a crowd of 200 at the Waukee Area Chamber of Commerce annual dinner in West Des Moines. Pawlenty claims he will decide whether to run for president in March or April, but it seems obvious that he’s running. Not only has he visited Iowa seven times in 15 months, his Iowa political action committee gave nearly $110,000 to Iowa GOP candidates and organizations supporting Republican causes in 2010.

After the jump I catch up on recent news about Pawlenty and other Republicans who may compete in the Iowa caucuses.

A busy week at the Iowa legislature kicks off Monday evening with what’s sure to be a packed Iowa House hearing on a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition for same-sex relationships. Groups supporting conservation of Iowa’s natural resources have several rallies and lobby days planned during the next two weeks. Those and other event details are after the jump. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of an event that should be included on this calendar.

Yet another winter storm is heading for Iowa this week, but spring rains aren’t too far off. Gardeners and anyone who cares about conserving water and reducing runoff may be interested in a sale of rain barrels (all repurposed to keep waste out of landfills). Proceeds benefit the non-profit 1000 Friends of Iowa, specifically to “support the development of an educational exhibit which focuses on land use and water as it relates to run-off from non-porous surfaces as well as to bring attention to the many uses for collected rain water.” Those uses include watering gardens, washing cars and general housecleaning. Click here for more information about the rain barrels and here to order by February 11.

The Des Moines Register announced the overnight stops for the 39th Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI) this evening. It starts in Glenwood (Mills County, south of Council Bluffs) on July 24 with overnights in Atlantic (Cass County), Carroll (Carroll County), Boone (Boone County), Altoona (Polk County), Grinnell (Poweshiek County) and Coralville (Johnson County) before ending in Davenport (Scott County) on July 30.

Go to ragbrai.com for more information about the ride or to register. Lots of RAGBRAI trivia can be found here. For instance,

• Longest RAGBRAI route: 550 miles from Hawarden to Clinton in 1985 Shortest route: 370 miles from Onawa to Lansing in 1977

• Average length of RAGBRAI route: 472 miles

• Longest single day: 114 miles from Webster to Waverly in 1980

• Shortest single day: 25 miles from Elkader to Guttenberg, also in 1980 […]

• Most climb: 26,374 feet of incline going up hills between Missouri Valley and Keokuk in 1981

• Least climb: 10,675 feet of incline going up hills between Onawa and Lansing in 1977

• Most climb in a single day: 5,942 feet of incline between Des Moines and Williamsburg in 1973. That’s almost 10 trips up the state’s tallest skyscraper, the 630-foot tower at 801 Grand.

• Least climb in a single day: 760 feet of incline from Onawa to Ida Grove in 1977

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

Roughly 46,000 Iowans who buy individual health insurance policies through Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield will face an average rate hike of 8.5 percent this year, instead of the 11 percent Wellmark requested. State Insurance Commissioner Susan Voss announced on Friday that she had approved a smaller rate increase, in part because of reviews conducted by two actuaries who said Wellmark’s request was excessive. A law enacted in 2010 required an independent actuarial review whenever an insurer’s proposed premium hike exceeds the medical inflation rate.

According to the Des Moines Register, Voss said in a January 28 press release

that her department would look into whether the company has appropriate levels of reserves. She said the department also would examine how Wellmark’s dominant position in the Iowa market affects Iowans.

“We’ve heard the concerns of Wellmark’s customers,” Voss said.

“We think the time is right for a careful professional analysis of these two additional areas. We gained valuable insights from the extended review just completed that allowed us to arrive at the appropriate level of permitted rate increase. Learning more facts on these points will be useful in future considerations of rate adjustments.”

Wellmark has a near-monopoly on the individual health insurance market in Iowa. The company is the provider for more than 70 percent of Iowans who purchase their own health insurance.  

After interviewing 60 applicants for the three vacancies on the Iowa Supreme Court this week, the State Judicial Nominating Commission sent Governor Terry Branstad a list of nine candidates on January 27. After the jump I’ve posted the press release naming the nine finalists. Five are lower-court judges (four district court, one appeals court), three are attorneys in private practice, and one is on the University of Iowa law school faculty. Branstad has to select three appointees within the next thirty days. Click here for information about and writing samples by all 60 applicants.

My first thought on reading the short list was that going forward, Iowa’s high court will have no women justices for the first time in many years. Twelve women applied for the Supreme Court vacancies, including District Court Judge Annette Scieszinski of Ottumwa and two assistant attorneys general, Jeanie Vaudt and Elisabeth Reynoldson. Since former Chief Justice Marsha Ternus was not retained by Iowa voters and had been the only woman on the court, I expected the commission to include at least a couple of women on the nominees list sent to Branstad. However, only University of Iowa Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig made the short list, and I see zero chance Branstad will select her. It’s not that she is the youngest of the nine candidates; at her age (37), Branstad was governor of Iowa. The salient fact is that Onwuachi-Willig submitted a friend of the court brief in the Varnum v Brien case, supporting the plaintiffs who were seeking to have the Defense of Marriage Act struck down. I can’t imagine any scenario in which Branstad chooses a public supporter of marriage equality for a judgeship.

Nathan Tucker of the recently-formed conservative 501(c)4 group Iowa Judicial Watch posted the party affiliations and campaign donation history of all nine finalists, as well as links to their application materials and interviews with the judicial nominating commission. Eight of the finalists refused to fill out Iowa Judicial Watch’s questionnaire. Appeals Court Judge Edward Mansfield filled out most of the lengthy document but declined to answer question 26, containing some three dozen more specific questions about his “judicial ideology.” Still, Tucker took a cheap shot at Mansfield, stating, “Though a registered Republican, Mansfield’s wife has donated good and services to Planned Parenthood.” Dangling modifiers aside, donations by Mansfield’s wife don’t necessarily reflect the judge’s views and certainly don’t affect his competence to serve on the Iowa Supreme Court. Looks to me like Tucker wanted to signal to The Iowa Republican blog’s readership that they should oppose Mansfield despite his Republican affiliation.

A more extensive update on news related to the Iowa Supreme Court is in progress. Meanwhile, share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

P.S. Before the commission began interviewing candidates, Iowa House Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Anderson withdrew his application to serve on the Iowa Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Only two women have ever served on the Iowa Supreme Court: Linda Neuman from 1986 to 2003 and Marsha Ternus from 1993 to the end of 2010. If appointed by Branstad (she won’t be), Onwuachi-Willig, who is black, would be the first ethnic minority on the Iowa Supreme Court.

Governor Terry Branstad presents his draft budget to members of the Iowa House and Senate this morning. His staff have indicated he will outline about $700 million in budget cuts, including layoffs of hundreds of workers. Branstad and Republican legislators say Iowa needs to reduce spending by $700 million to make up for the projected budget gap for fiscal year 2012, which begins on July 1.

The facts tell a different story: Iowa has a projected gap of around $263 million for the coming fiscal year. That figure was the Legislative Services Agency’s best guess as of December 2010, but it probably overstates the gap. Congress extended the Bush tax cuts for all income levels, which means higher-income Iowans will not be forced to pay more federal taxes and therefore will not have more to deduct from their state tax returns. With the Bush tax cuts in place, Iowa can expect to collect about $140 million more in state tax receipts for the 2012 fiscal year. That would be enough to cover the estimated cost of the new AFSCME contract Branstad has declared unaffordable.

The $700 million figure Branstad uses assumes Iowa will use more than $300 million from the current-year budget surplus to pay for corporate and other tax cuts. He also wants to reduce commercial property taxes, which will cost the state more money to reimburse local governments. Those are Branstad’s preferences, not policies state government is obliged to implement. It’s not that Iowa can’t afford to continue the preschool program that costs about $70 million per year, or can’t afford any allowable growth in K-12 education budgets. Republicans simply want to do other things with the public’s money.

I am curious to hear what Branstad says about transportation funding today, since he came out this week against passenger rail subsidies but for a future gas tax hike to build more roads. I also wonder whether he will propose any specific reform to tax-increment financing in Iowa. TIF was originally intended to spur redevelopment in “slum and blighted” urban areas but has become increasingly costly for state government and has created inequities in commercial property taxes.

I’ll update this post with details from Branstad’s speech and political reaction after the jump. Meanwhile, share any thoughts about the state budget in this thread.

UPDATE: IowaPolitics.com posted the prepared text of Branstad’s speech. Big surprise: he’s not planning to eliminate appropriations for preschool, just to reduce them to $43 million per year. Further thoughts are below.

FRIDAY UPDATE: At the end of this post I’ve added Senator Rob Hogg’s assessment of Branstad’s draft budget. He notes that zero percent allowable growth for K-12 schools for two years is “unprecedented in the history of Iowa’s school financing formula which was created in 1973.”

Lack of funding for various flood mitigation and watershed management programs also concerns Hogg, a Democrat representing Cedar Rapids and a leading advocate of improved flood prevention efforts in Iowa.

Former Governor Chet Culver and former Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Rants were vindicated today, as Governor Terry Branstad “encouraged transportation stakeholders to build support for a gas tax increase next year,” James Q. Lynch reported.

Last summer, Branstad said the timing wasn’t right for a gas tax increase, and today he told “representatives of highway associations and coalitions, local elected officials, engineers, economic developers and other stakeholders” that this year fiscal issues will take priority. Still, he made clear that he supports raising the gas tax to pay for more road construction in the future:

Having the resources to maintain and improve the transportation system is “absolutely critical to our goal of creating 200,000 jobs and raising incomes by 25 percent and making Iowa a growing and competitive state,” Branstad said.

That was welcome news to the transportation stakeholders who have lobbied in recent years for a gas tax increase to provide those resources. […]

“I want to team with you and help in this effort because I see it as part of what is critically important to our economic development success and achieving our ambitious job creation goals and income growth goals,” Branstad said.

According to Lynch, Branstad “repeatedly referred to motor fuel taxes as user fees that benefit motorists who pay it.” Earlier this month, a report by Iowa Public Interest Research Group demonstrated that “gas taxes cover barely half the costs of building and maintaining roads,” and “[t]he amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes.” The governor isn’t worried about taxpayers subsidizing roads for other people, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, but he’s deeply troubled by a small subsidy for passenger rail.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Branstad backs a sales tax increase a year or two down the road. Last April, he told the Sioux City Journal editorial board that his “long-range plan” on taxes was “to have more of a thing on consumption.” Shifting to draw more state revenues from consumption taxes (like the sales and gas tax) and less from income and property taxes would make Iowa’s already regressive tax structure even worse.