The Republican Party of Iowa and Fox News will co-sponsor a presidential debate on August 11, 2011, two days before the party’s “straw poll” in Ames. Journalists closely watch the straw poll as a test of Republican candidates’ organizational strength in Iowa.

Tying the party fundraiser in Ames with the debate on Fox, an influential outlet for conservatives, will give incentive to candidates campaigning for Iowa’s leadoff nominating caucuses to participate in the straw poll, state party Chairman Matt Strawn said.

“I think the opportunity to address not just Iowa caucusgoers and straw poll attendees but to address the nation in a debate from Ames would be something that would be very difficult for a candidate to pass up,” Strawn said.

I am trying to think of another example of a news organization scheduling a debate with the express goal of helping promote a political party’s fundraiser. But then, Fox isn’t your typical news organization. Its parent company donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association earlier this year. Why not have the Fox News subsidiary lend a helping hand to the Iowa GOP?

Understandably, Iowa Republicans worry that some presidential candidates might take the John McCain/Rudy Giuliani strategy: skip the straw poll and generally avoid campaigning in Iowa. That hurts the state party organization, which relies on the straw poll as a major fundraiser, and Republican legislators, who often receive campaign contributions from presidential candidates’ PACs.

Bob Vander Plaats, the Iowa chair of Mike Huckabee’s last presidential campaign, recently said he would advise Huckabee to wait until after the straw poll to decide whether to run for president. Huckabee’s strong second-place finish in the 2007 straw poll demonstrated that he was a force to be reckoned with in Iowa. Before that event, Mitt Romney was the heavy favorite to win the caucuses. But the straw poll success cost Huckabee’s campaign and Americans for Fair Taxation approximately $150,000 each. That’s a lot of money to spend to win a news cycle.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register’s Thomas Beaumont, Giuliani’s former campaign manager Mike Duhaime predicted that some candidates would participate in the Fox News debate but not the straw poll, because of how costly it is to compete seriously in the straw poll. Strawn said Fox News and the Iowa GOP haven’t determined yet whether candidates would be barred from the debate if they didn’t plan to participate in the straw poll.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

The House of Representatives approved a bill last night to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, reduce the estate tax, and extend benefits for some unemployed people by 13 months. The bill passed by an unusual bipartisan vote of 277 to 148. The Democratic caucus split 139 in favor of the bill and 112 against, while Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill by a 138 to 36 margin. The roll call shows that Iowa Democrats Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for the bill, as did Republican Tom Latham (IA-04). Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Republican Steve King (IA-05) both voted no.

It’s a disgrace that House Democrats went along with a so-called “compromise” that makes the lowest-income workers pay more, does nothing for people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and will lay the groundwork for big cuts to domestic spending and Social Security in the future. President Barack Obama deserves the most blame for not negotiating a better deal with Republican leaders. He could have changed the dynamic months ago by making a clear threat to veto any extension of the tax cuts for the highest incomes. But he lacked the courage or the integrity to stand up for tax policies he claims to believe in.

Democrats should nevertheless have voted against this bill, in my opinion. They campaigned against the Bush tax cuts for a decade and are now extending them at all income levels, setting the stage for a permanent extension two years from now. Sorry, Sue Dvorsky: that’s not standing up for the middle class.

It’s a moral failure for the Democratic Party to ask people earning less than $20,000 and families earning less than $40,000 to pay a bit more while the wealthiest people don’t sacrifice a penny. Democrats may have worried the Republican-controlled House would pass an even less favorable bill in the new year, which Obama would sign.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. You can tell Loebsack isn’t proud of this vote, and Boswell makes some excuses too. But it’s consistent with his style: “As I have always said, my legislative philosophy is if you can’t take home the whole loaf of bread, grab as many slices as you can to benefit your constituents […].”

Braley’s press release touting his no vote uses a Republican frame (“Americans spoke clearly on November second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax dollars […]”). His remarks during the House floor debate also focused on fiscal conservatism, although Braley also threw in some populist lines criticizing the tax breaks for the rich. He also cited the threat to “the long-term viability of Social Security.”

UPDATE: In the comments, John Deeth mentioned the House vote on an amendment to raise the estate tax rate and lower the exemption to that tax received just 194 yes votes, all from Democrats. Braley and Loebsack voted with the majority of their caucus, but Boswell was among the 60 Democrats who voted with Republicans. Changing the bill would have sent the measure back to the Senate rather than directly to the president’s desk.

Fallout from last month’s vote against retaining Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker continues to make the news almost daily.

Follow me after the jump for links and analysis on the timetable for replacing Ternus, Streit and Baker, efforts to change Iowa’s system for choosing judges, political pressure on the remaining justices, and how the retention vote will affect the 2012 elections.

The House of Representatives approved a stand-alone bill today to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The vote was 250 to 175, with just 15 Republicans crossing party lines to vote yes and 15 Democrats voting no. Iowa’s Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted for repeal, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against. Boswell is the only veteran among Iowa’s current House delegation. He served in the Army for 20 years, including two tours in Vietnam.

I haven’t seen any Iowa poll on this subject, but numerous national polls have indicated that more than 70 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. That figure was 77 percent in the most recent poll on the issue, conducted by Langer Research for ABC News and the Washington Post. A Pentagon survey this year found that “70 percent of surveyed service members believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.” Support for ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was significantly lower among Marines, however.

The U.S. Senate voted 81 to 19 today to approve a bill to extend unemployment benefits and some tax credits for one year, in exchange for keeping current income tax rates on all income levels in place for two years. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley was among 37 Republicans who voted yes, while Tom Harkin was among 14 Democrats who voted no. (Harkin and three others voted against the bill today despite voting for Monday’s cloture motion to advance the bill.) Before today’s final vote, the Senate considered a motion to suspend the rules so that Senator Bernie Sanders’ amendment improving various tax provisions could be considered. Only 43 Democrats, including Harkin, supported that effort.

Bleeding Heartland has already covered some of the problems with this bill.  Some may wonder why a self-styled deficit hawk like Grassley would support adding $858 billion to the deficit over two years (and trillions more in the years to come, as Bush tax cuts appear almost certain to be made permanent). Grassley’s answer is that Americans are still “overtaxed,” and “We have a deficit problem because Washington spends too much.” Naturally, Republicans ignore the fact that Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, or that corporate tax payments are at historically low levels. Statements from Grassley and Harkin on today’s vote are after the jump. Harkin’s Senate floor statement of December 14 made a more extensive case against the package.

But desmoinesdem, you might object, Republicans said a few weeks ago that they would block everything during the lame-duck session until the future of the Bush tax cuts was resolved. Well, the tax cuts have been extended, and now Republicans are threatening to shut down the federal government and block ratification of the START U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty. Who’d have guessed that giving in to Republican demands would lead to more hostage taking?

The House of Representatives is debating repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today. I wouldn’t bet on Republicans letting that through the Senate, even though at least 60 senators claim to be for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller spoke out this week about changes attorneys general and bank regulators will seek in order to resolve major problems in the banking and mortgage servicing industry. Miller has led the national mortgage foreclosure working group since October. He discussed the investigation and possible terms of a settlement in a recent Des Moines Register interview and in a December 14 meeting with advocates for reform to reduce foreclosures and compensate homeowners.

Miller’s remarks suggest the settlement will focus on ending all “robo-signing” practices, increasing the number of loan modifications and reducing principal to help keep people in their homes. The investigation may lead to criminal prosecutions as well. More details are after the jump.

Governor-elect Terry Branstad has asked Nancy Richardson to remain head of the Iowa Department of Transportation “through the 2011 legislative session.” Governor Tom Vilsack appointed Richardson to head the DOT during his second term; she was one of the few department heads Governor Chet Culver kept in place. A Branstad press release with background on Richardson is after the jump. It says she “is a strong leader and we appreciate her willingness to serve in the administration as we continue our nationwide search for a new director.”

Perhaps Branstad will take several months to consider DOT candidates from around the country, but he hasn’t been using that kind of process for other appointments announced so far. Shortly after the election, he offered the Department of Inspections and Appeals director job to Rod Roberts, who hadn’t even applied for the position, let alone competed against other possible appointees in an interview.

My first thought on hearing the news about Richardson was that Branstad has already decided on a new DOT director, but for some reason that person isn’t available to start the job until the spring. (The Iowa legislature’s 2011 session begins in January; most years, legislators wrap up their work in April.) It could be someone outside Iowa who needs a few months to relocate, or someone who needs to finish a major project in her/his current job, or perhaps a sitting state legislator who doesn’t want to step down until after the session.

Alternatively, Branstad may have someone controversial in mind for the DOT position. State department heads must be confirmed by the Iowa Senate. If Branstad appoints Richardson’s replacement after the session ends, that person will be able to serve on an interim basis until the Senate considers the nomination in early 2012.

UPDATE: Branstad’s spokesman Tim Albrecht told the Des Moines Register, “We do not have anyone lined up at this time. We are still in the midst of our search, and that is not confined to the borders of Iowa. This is going to be a thorough search to find the right individual.” I wonder why Branstad wants a much more lengthy search for this position than for various other important state departments.

While she stays on the job, I hope that Richardson will help persuade Branstad not to back out of a passenger rail project that would connect Iowa City to Chicago via the Quad Cities. Richardson isn’t a visionary for alternative modes of transportation, but she supported the Culver administration’s efforts to promote passenger rail in Iowa. Branstad said he is reviewing the costs and benefits of the project. The federal government has approved $230 million in funding for the Iowa portion of the rail connection. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has spoken favorably about the project, and Des Moines business leaders hope the Chicago-Iowa City connection will one day be extended through Des Moines and on to Council Bluffs and Omaha.

Republican governors-elect in Ohio and Wisconsin have rejected federal funding for passenger rail projects. That decision is already costing Wisconsin jobs and will cost Ohio economic development opportunities.

Longtime Iowa political operative Gentry Collins officially announced yesterday that he will run for chairman of the Republican National Committee this January. Collins filed paperwork for the race last month shortly before he resigned as the RNC’s political director. One of the three Iowa RNC members, state party chairman Matt Strawn, has already endorsed Collins.

However, RNC member Steve Scheffler told The Iowa Republican blog that he will back Wisconsin GOP chairman Reince Priebus for RNC chairman.

Not only is Scheffler supporting Priebus, but he has agreed to serve in Priebus’ “kitchen cabinet.” […]

Preibus won Scheffler’s support by being a strong defender of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status, having a strong stance on social issues, and pledging to run a tight ship if elected to lead the RNC.

Scheffler’s support of Priebus is also a blow to Gentry Collins’ bid to be RNC chairman. Collins, an Iowan, has spent years working in Iowa politics. His inability to secure the support of all three Iowa RNC members will likely be a red flag to other members of the committee.

Scheffler would have come into contact with Collins when Collins was running Mitt Romney’s Iowa campaign in 2007. Scheffler heads the Iowa Christian Alliance, which organized house parties featuring Romney and several other Republican presidential candidates before the caucuses. (Neither Scheffler nor the Iowa Christian Alliance endorsed a candidate in that GOP field.) Scheffler was elected to represent Iowa at the RNC in July 2008, and Collins worked for John McCain’s campaign in Iowa during that year’s general election.

I haven’t seen any public comment from Iowa’s third RNC representative, Kim Lehman, regarding the upcoming race for chairman. She and Scheffler are ideologically similar, having been elected by the same faction of socially conservative delegates to the Iowa GOP state convention in 2008. In January 2009, Scheffler and Lehman publicly supported Katon Dawson for RNC chairman. He lost to current chairman Michael Steele on the sixth round of balloting.  

Governor-elect Terry Branstad announced yesterday that Brenna Findley will be his administration’s legal counsel. Findley was bound to get a good job in state government, given the national and state Republican money behind her candidacy for attorney general, and the way Branstad promoted her all year long. He also appeared in one of Findley’s television commercials, which he did not do for other down-ticket Republican candidates.

I had heard rumors Findley might be put in charge of the Iowa Department of Public Safety, since her commercials in the attorney general’s race had a strong public-safety angle. On the other hand, the Iowa Senate has to confirm heads of state departments, and some might have questioned Findley’s qualifications for that kind of position.

Findley doesn’t have much experience in the practice of law, but Branstad doesn’t need state senators to confirm his staff appointees. Before running against Attorney General Tom Miller, Findley served as Representative Steve King’s chief of staff for seven years. Earlier this year, she joined a law firm run by former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker and State Representative Chris Hagenow, who (like Findley) are both potential Republican candidates for higher office. Branstad’s press release announcing his choice of Findley is after the jump.

Iowa’s U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among a large bipartisan majority that voted to advance a bill to extend unemployment benefits, the Bush tax cuts and various special tax breaks and credits. The Senate passed the cloture motion by a vote of 83 to 15. Just 10 members of the Democratic caucus and five Republicans voted against cloture for various reasons. A handful of senators who voted for cloture may vote against the bill itself, but the bill will pass easily.

The Los Angeles Times summarized key points in the Senate’s version of the deal President Barack Obama negotiated with Republican leaders in Congress:

The package extends the Bush tax cuts for two years on families at all income levels, including the wealthiest 2% who have incomes above $250,000 a year. Obama once campaigned against tax cuts for those earners.

The package also continues unemployment insurance through 2011 for up to 7 million Americans who otherwise would see their extended jobless aid expire.

One key change for most taxpayers will be a 2-percentage-point reduction in payroll tax worth up to $2,000. It replaces the so-called Making Work Pay tax cut for 95% of Americans, a break that expires Dec. 31.

The package also reinstates the estate tax that lapsed this year under a quirk of law. It establishes a 35% rate on inheritances above $5 million for singles and $10 million for families. […]

[T]he Senate added $10 billion in energy assistance, including nearly $5 billion in ethanol and coal credits that environmentalists oppose. But it also included an extension of grants for renewable energy developers, which supporters credit with having doubled solar plant production in 2010.

The package also includes a long, $55-billion list of specialty tax breaks that tend to be extended each year – help for Puerto Rican rum makers, racetrack developers and Los Angeles film producers.

I don’t have time to list all the shameful aspects of this deal tonight, but I discuss seven big problems after the jump. UPDATE: I recommend Rortybomb’s post on “who got what” in this package.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled today that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. The mandate, scheduled to go into effect in 2014, is a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, which President Barack Obama signed in March. The mandate creates a guaranteed increased market for private insurers in exchange for new regulations, such as ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Most of the two dozen lawsuits filed against the federal health insurance reform law have challenged the individual mandate. Judges dismissed several of those cases earlier this year, but Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli found a somewhat sympathetic ear in Judge Hudson, who wrote, “No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance. […] Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers.”

Hudson arguably should have recused himself from this case, since he owns a significant share in the Republican consulting firm Campaign Solutions, Inc. That firm has worked against health care reform and for various Republicans, including Cuccinelli. But in fairness to Hudson, he rejected the plaintiff’s call to strike down the entire health insurance reform law, or to issue an injunction against implementing that law. In any event, legal challenges to the mandate are bound to work their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court one way or another. (The Justice Department will appeal Hudson’s ruling.)

Senator Chuck Grassley’s office released this statement:

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, in 2008 and 2009, Senator Grassley participated in the bipartisan effort for health care reform that could secure support across the political spectrum.  In September 2009, that effort was thwarted by Democratic leaders in Washington.  From 2007 through 2009, there was a rigorous debate over the individual mandate.  President Obama staunchly opposed it as a candidate for President.  The concerns he raised then became more clear as the reform debate unfolded, including enforcement.  Health insurance companies lobbied for the mandate, which drives billions of tax dollars in new subsidies directly to them.

Senator Grassley’s comment:

“The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service called requiring people to buy a good or service or be penalized a ‘novel issue,’ and now a federal court has ruled it unconstitutional.  The ruling is likely to be appealed, but it’s a clear signal that the constitutionality of the law, which was moved through Congress with a lot of controversy and partisanship, isn’t as certain as its supporters have argued.”

Hmmm, something seems to be missing from that statement. Oh, now I remember: Grassley supported an individual health insurance mandate in 1993 and 2007, and said in June 2009 that “there is a bipartisan consensus [in Congress] to have individual mandates.”

Senator Tom Harkin, a key author of the health insurance reform law, didn’t think much of the judge’s reasoning:

“On the merits, the Virginia Attorney General’s suit is clearly wrong.  When people seek medical care without health insurance and don’t pay for it, they aren’t ‘opting out’ of the health care market.  Instead, it adds more than $1,000 per year to the premiums of American families who act responsibly by having coverage.  This clearly affects interstate commerce and is thus within Congress’ power to regulate.  

“Two federal courts in Michigan and Virginia have already dismissed similar cases, and the Virginia court should have followed their lead.  I’m confident that the appellate courts and the Supreme Court will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional and in doing so, ensure that Americans keep crucial new protections against the unfair practices of insurance companies.”

I will update this post as other Iowa politicians comment on Hudson’s ruling.

UPDATE: From Representative Steve King, a leading Republican advocate of repealing the health insurance reform:

“With Judge Hanson’s decision, a federal court has now ruled in accordance with what I have always said – Obamacare’s requirement that Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional. Obamacare’s ‘individual mandate’ always restd on the absurd premise that the Commerce Clause empowered the federal government to regulate Americans’ decisions not to engage in commercial activity… With the ‘individual mandate’ that lies at the heart of the legislation ruled unconstitutional, the badly-flawed Obamacare law is now completely dysfunctional, further accelerating the need for Congress to repeal it.”

Governor-elect Terry Branstad hasn’t commented on this lawsuit, but he announced today that Brenna Findley will be his legal counsel. Findley was King’s chief of staff for seven years before running unsuccessfully for Iowa attorney general. She made challenging health insurance reform (specifically the individual mandate) a major issue in her campaign. Branstad promoted her candidacy at virtually every campaign stop and appeared in one of Findley’s television commercials.  

The Board of Regents unanimously approved requests last week for 95 sabbaticals in the coming year, to be taken by faculty at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. That number was way down from the 167 sabbaticals approved a few years ago. But Republicans, including the next Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, had called for a moratorium on sabbaticals to save money.

House Republicans have estimated that eliminating sabbaticals at the regents universities for a year would save taxpayers $6 million. However, “According to the regents, the 95 sabbaticals carry a $422,000 cost for replacement teachers, and last year’s sabbaticals generated $5.2 million in grants.”

Oops. The Republican savings estimate is off by more than a factor of ten. How did that happen? The Iowa City Press-Citizen explains:

[Iowa House Republicans’] projected savings apparently includes salaries that professors will earn whether they are on sabbatical or not.

Great fact-checking there on the House Republican staff. You’ve been circulating this $6 million figure for months, based on a false assumption that if universities stopped granting faculty sabbaticals, they could stop paying those professors’ salaries.

In a rational world, politicians wouldn’t try to micromanage affairs at the state universities, and would recognize their mistake in exaggerating the cost of sabbaticals. But Republicans have found an issue with a lot of symbolic punch. Like Paulsen says, “Why should the taxpayers of Iowa be paying to basically give these folks a year off from teaching?” Good universities have controls to ensure that faculty have research and publications to show for their sabbatical time, but the breaks from teaching can easily be portrayed as a big paid vacation for elitist eggheads.

Steve Kettering, who will be minority whip in the Iowa Senate, told the Press-Citizen that the regents’ vote on sabbaticals “is a thumb in their eye […] It just furthers the distance the people of Iowa feel about their universities. There is just a difference between the lives Iowans lead and the lives of the people in the university sector.” Kettering said legislators may respond either through reducing appropriations to the regents universities, or by passing a law to stop sabbaticals. I don’t think Republicans would be deterred by a Legislative Services Agency analysis showing the cost savings in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars, rather than the $6 million Republicans dream of.

Under Democratic control, the Iowa Senate probably would not pass a specific law halting sabbaticals, and senators would resist deep cuts to the regents universities’ budgets. However, if the Republican-controlled House appropriates far less to the universities, citing the regents’ failure to control costs, the final budget deal struck between the state senators and representatives could end up reducing appropriations by a lot more than the true cost of sabbaticals. The three state universities’ operating request for fiscal year 2012 is about $639 million.

A related concern is that yet again, we learn that a Republican proposal to save millions of taxpayer dollars isn’t supported by facts. Paulsen has made big promises about cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the state budget in the current year and beyond, in order to pay for GOP tax-cutting plans. Where will that money come from? Laying off some state employees and axing a few Democratic initiatives, like the Power Fund and voluntary preschool for four-year-olds, won’t add up to enough in savings. Significant cuts to higher education may be on the way, and the Board of Regents could become the scapegoat.

LATE UPDATE: University of Iowa President Sally Mason and P. Barry Butler, the university’s interim executive vice president and provost, published a guest column in the December 28 Des Moines Register defending “career development assignments.” Excerpts are after the jump.

Most of Iowa is dealing with blizzard conditions today and tonight. Not much has accumulated in the Des Moines area yet, but the wind is howling. My kids are hoping for enough snow to build a snowman or go sledding tomorrow. Unfortunately, the high temperature may be in the single digits Fahrenheit, so we will probably spend most of the next 36 hours cooped up inside.

How do you stay occupied when you’re snowed in? The kids have been busy with legos and board games for most of the afternoon, and we started a new big jigsaw puzzle today too. If I get some time to myself later, I’ll work on Ken Ken or some other logic problem.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartlanders?

Earlier this year, the Democratic-controlled Iowa legislature passed one of the loosest “shall issue” gun permit laws in the country. The bill appeared to have died in the legislature’s “funnel”, but Democratic leaders revived it, and the final version passed both chambers by wide margins. Democrats presumably thought supporting the top legislative priority of the National Rifle Assocation would save many of their vulnerable incumbents. But even though the NRA endorsed Governor Chet Culver and many Democratic lawmakers, Republicans made huge gains in Iowa last month.

Now the NRA plans “a major push for expanded gun rights in Iowa,” Jennifer Jacobs reported in today’s Des Moines Register. The organization’s priorities for the 2011 legislative session are listed after the jump.

The ban on gays in the military appears likely to live on despite broad public support for letting gays serve openly and a Pentagon review showing repeal would pose a “low risk” to the armed forces. Democrats in Congress attached a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal provision to the 2011 defense authorization bill. But on December 9 the U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion to proceed with considering that bill on a mostly party-line vote of 57-40. Iowa’s Tom Harkin was among 56 Democrats who voted to proceed with the bill; newly-elected Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia gave a convoluted excuse for voting no, while just-defeated Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas did not vote. Chuck Grassley was among all but three Republicans who voted no; two didn’t vote and Senator Susan Collins of Maine voted yes. Three Republicans who have claimed to support repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy upheld yesterday’s filibuster: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.

Negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Collins of Maine appear to have broken down over how Reid would allow amendments to be offered to the bill, and/or the length of time he would permit for debate. Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman say they will offer a stand-alone bill to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but whether that bill could clear the Senate before the end of the year is a big question mark. Even if it does, the House may not have time to vote on it before the new Congress takes office.

President Barack Obama publicly opposes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but he has so far declined to order a moratorium on discharges under the policy. That means federal courts will have the final say on whether the ban survives. A federal judge declared Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional earlier this year, and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take up the case next year.

In other Senate news yesterday, Republicans showed they were serious when they promised to block every single piece of legislation until the Bush tax cuts were all extended. The GOP caucus unanimously blocked consideration of a bill “that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” The vote was 57 Democrats in favor, including Harkin, and 42 Republicans opposed, including Grassley. According to the New York Times, “Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure,” which is laughable, because they have no problem voting for trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts.  Republican priorities disgust me, but they do know how to stay united, unlike Democrats.

Incidentally, Grassley said in a statement yesterday that he was able to get a full extension of ethanol and biodiesel tax credits included into the tax deal Obama negotiated with Republicans. Sounds like he will definitely support the package on the Senate floor (no concern from the phony deficit hawk about finding a way to offset the $858 billion price tag). Harkin hasn’t committed to voting yes or no on the tax cut deal. Grassley believes a short-term extension of unemployment benefits might have been possible even without a deal on the tax cuts. That would fall way short of what’s needed to help unemployed people and stimulate the economy. I am frustrated that no Congressional leaders in either party are serious about getting help to the “99ers” who have exhausted all their unemployment benefits.

Matt Strawn announced yesterday that he will seek another two-year term as chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. The party’s State Central Committee will formally elect a chair in January, but no serious opposition to Strawn will emerge. He has the support of Governor-elect Terry Branstad, incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, and Senator Chuck Grassley.

Strawn earned another term by guiding Iowa Republicans to major gains in the state. The political climate was generally favorable to the GOP, of course, especially in the Midwest, and the huge campaign war chests of Branstad and Senator Chuck Grassley gave Republicans a financial advantage. Still, Strawn helped lay the groundwork. Iowa Republicans had never focused on GOTV outside of their famed 72-hour operation just before election day. This year early voting among Republicans in the state was up 83 percent compared to 2006. According to Strawn, that success made it possible for the Republicans’ election-day GOTV to focus on state legislative races. Republicans exceeded expectations by winning six Democratic-held state Senate seats and racking up a net gain of 16 in the Iowa House.

Another reason for Republicans to stick with Strawn is that he can be a neutral figure in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. To my knowledge, Strawn didn’t publicly support any of the 2008 presidential candidates who might run again next year. He and his wife Erin have donated to various Republican candidates, including members of Congress outside Iowa during the last few cycles, but I couldn’t find any record of contributions from them to presidential candidates. CLARIFICATION: Strawn was previously Iowa caucus director for John McCain, but he wasn’t associated with any Republicans who might challenge Barack Obama in the upcoming election cycle.

The state GOP can’t afford to have many candidates copy McCain’s strategy of mostly skipping Iowa, because the “straw poll” event set for August before each presidential caucus year is a major fundraiser for the party.

Speaking of which, I was intrigued to see Bob Vander Plaats say this recently:

Advisers differ on how late [Mike Huckabee] could jump in, but Vander Plaats said he’d advise Huckabee to wait until extremely late – after the August Iowa GOP straw poll – to survey the lay of the land and make up his mind.

“He could come in as an energized, fire in the belly, Fred Thompson,” he said, referring to the former Tennessee senator’s much-anticipated run in 2008 – a late entry that fizzled when Thompson seemed to have little stomach for the rigors of the trail.

Strange advice, since the 2007 Iowa GOP straw poll was Huckabee’s breakout event, thanks in large part to a helping hand from Americans for Fair Taxation. I’m struggling to think of any example of a presidential candidate doing well in the Iowa caucuses thanks to a late start on organizing. It sounds like Vander Plaats is trying to undermine the state party’s premiere fundraising event. Perhaps he thinks downgrading the straw poll will help elevate the significance of whatever his new organization (The Family Leader) has planned. Or, maybe he believes state party leaders were involved in helping recruit Terry Branstad back into politics at a time when Vander Plaats seemed to have the GOP gubernatorial nomination locked up. I’ve always wondered how much Strawn encouraged the business leaders who lobbied Branstad to run for governor in the summer of 2009.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Governor-elect Terry Branstad announced today that ophthalmologist Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks will run the Iowa Department of Public Health in his administration. A press release noted that Miller-Meeks “has served as the first woman President of the Iowa Medical Society and was the first [woman] on the faculty in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Iowa and councilor for Iowa to the American Academy of Ophthalmology.” Miller-Meeks was the Republican nominee in Iowa’s second Congressional district in 2008 and 2010. She worked hard during both campaigns but lost to Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s most Democratic-leaning Congressional district.

Also on December 9, Branstad announced that he will tap Chuck Palmer to head the Department of Human Services in his administration. Palmer did that job during Branstad’s previous time as governor from 1989 to 1999. Most recently he has been president of Iowans for Social and Economic Development, “an asset development organization with the mission of creating opportunities for low and moderate income Iowans to increase income and achieve financial stability.”

Branstad has pledged to reduce the size of state government by 15 percent, and keeping that promise would likely require significant cuts in the departments Miller-Meeks and Palmer will be running. The current budget (fiscal year 2011) allocated $935.5 million from the general fund to health and human services. That’s 17.7 percent of the general fund budget alone, or 15.9 percent of total state expenditures, including federal stimulus money and reserve funds as well as general fund spending. More than $200 million in federal stimulus money supported Iowa’s Medicaid budget in the current budget year, but similar support won’t be forthcoming in future years now that Republicans have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Branstad administration press releases on Miller-Meeks and Palmer are after the jump.

The House of Representatives approved the DREAM Act on December 8 by a vote of 216 to 198. The bill would give some undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship. Eligible people could obtain “conditional” status for six years provided they have no criminal record, have lived in the country for at least five years, and have graduated from high school or received a GED. To maintain legal status, people would have to pass a criminal background check and demonstrate that they have either attended college or served in the military for at least two years. Although 38 House Democrats opposed the DREAM Act yesterday, all three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for it. Only eight House Republicans crossed party lines to support this bill, and those did not include Tom Latham or Steve King. In recent weeks, King has slammed the DREAM Act as a “multi-billion dollar amnesty nightmare.”

The White House supports the DREAM Act, and the administration has mostly exempted students even as deportations of undocumented immigrants increased since President Barack Obama took office. However, Obama didn’t insist on passage of the DREAM Act as part of his tax cut deal with Congressional Republican leaders. The Senate is expected to vote on the House version of this bill next week. Although some Republicans support the DREAM Act, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, I would be surprised if it passes during the lame duck session.

Incidentally, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has supported legislation like the DREAM Act in the last, but last week he said he opposed current bill before Congress. He must be aware that if he runs for president again, he’ll need to win over GOP primary voters and caucus-goers who overwhelmingly oppose what conservatives call “amnesty.”

Also on December 8, the House voted on the Seniors Protection Act. According to a statement from Braley’s office, that bill “would have provided a one-time $250 payment to seniors on Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), railroad retirement, and veterans disability compensation or pension benefits due to the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment for 2011 (COLA).” The bill received 254 votes in favor and 153 votes against but still failed, because it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. The Iowa delegation again split on party lines.

Meanwhile, the offices of Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell still have not responded to my requests for comment on Obama’s tax deal with Republicans. On December 9 the House Democratic caucus reportedly voted against bringing the deal to the floor, but that was a non-binding resolution. The bill could still pass with a minority of Democratic votes and a majority of Republicans. On the Senate side, Republican Chuck Grassley says the deal is better than doing nothing. Democrat Tom Harkin says he is working behind the scenes to improve the deal and is inclined to vote no without some changes. However, even as he criticized Obama’s negotiating strategy, Harkin didn’t rule out supporting the deal until he sees the final package.

UPDATE: Braley released this noncommittal statement on December 9:

“As the tax cut package takes shape, I want to reiterate my support for a tax cut extension for every American family on incomes up to $250,000.  I continue to fight for an extension of unemployment benefits, especially during the holiday season.  I remain extremely concerned that extending Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans will explode the deficit.”

“I continue to fight to cut taxes for Iowa’s families and I am working to ensure our future generations are not saddled with extreme debt.  I look forward to reading the legislative language produced on the bill before making a final decision on these important issues.”

SECOND UPDATE: Steve King talked to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth:

King said he dislikes that the tax cuts are only extended for two years. He said he wouldn’t go to the mat to extend the tax cuts permanently, but that they should be at a minimum extended five years so people sitting on capital to invest will know their tax liabilities for a longer period.

Further, King doesn’t like the unemployment benefits extension, since he said that only encourages people to not work and continue to receive those dollars.

THIRD UPDATE: Loebsack’s office says he “has consistently supported extending the middle-class tax cuts. He is also pleased to see that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits and additional tax cuts for hard-working families are included, along with potential extensions of renewable energy tax credits.  He is actively working to improve the proposal as it develops in order to ensure that the best interests of Iowans are being served.”  

Incoming Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen discussed plans for shrinking state government in a December 8 speech. Rod Boshart has the story:

“You should us expect us to make some tough choices,” Paulsen told a Des Moines Partnership lunch crowd. “I think you’re going to see us just wholesale eliminate a couple difference programs and a couple different offices and we’re going to start with those that have marginal or no benefit.

The incoming House leader said voters sent a clear signal that government at all levels is growing too big too fast, regulating too much, and spending and taxing too much – issues the reconfigured House plans to address next session.[…]

The Power Fund has been administered by the Iowa Office of Energy Independence in conjunction with the Iowa Power Fund Board, two entities that were created when the program was enacted in the 2007 legislative session.

Paulsen also said he would prefer to replace the Grow Iowa Values Fund, started by former Gov. Tom Vilsack, with “things that would grow the economy” under the new public-private partnership envisioned by Governor-elect Terry Branstad [….]

Paulsen’s premise is incorrect. Iowa’s state government has not been growing during the past decade; on the contrary, general fund spending has fallen as a share of the economy and of personal income. But that’s a subject for another day.

House Republicans have advocated cutting the Power Fund for some time, and doing so would theoretically save $25 million per budget year. According to Boshart, the Values Fund received $45 million in fiscal year 2010 and $38 million for fiscal year 2011. I don’t believe the real savings will be nearly so large, because too many business interests have benefited from Values Fund and Power Fund grants. Lobbyists will work to ensure that significant funding for business support remains under a different department or program.

In addition, the Iowa Senate, which is under Democratic control, may insist that the state continue to invest significant resources in renewable energy. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal said last month,

If [R]epublicans have another approach that will help keep us at the forefront of renewable energy in this state and clean energy and green energy we’re completely open to looking at that. It doesn’t have to be called a power fund, it doesn’t have to be called I-jobs.

I will say this: cutting the Power Fund is more realistic than some other big savings proposed by House Republicans in the past. I expect Paulsen will be disappointed by the Legislative Services Agency’s analysis of how much can truly be saved by privatizing the state vehicle fleet or denying benefits to undocumented immigrants. The Iowa Senate will block efforts to eliminate the preschool program, although some money may be saved by means-testing that program, as Governor-elect Terry Branstad has advocated. Last year’s government reorganization already improved efficiencies in state purchasing.

One old Republican idea I haven’t heard Paulsen mention lately is implementing “the Principal Plan” to impose salary cuts on non-union state employees. House Republicans have called for requiring the governor to negotiate pay reductions on a sliding scale, from 2 percent for employees earning less than $40,000 per year up to a 10 percent salary reduction for those earning more than $100,000. This pdf file shows the projected savings in the different categories.

Share any thoughts about the state budget in this thread.

John Lennon was murdered outside his apartment building in New York City 30 years ago today. Tributes can be found all over the internet; I was moved by noweasels’ account of that night.

I have loved Beatles music as long I can remember. Although I’ve always been more of a “Paul” person, some of John’s songs are among my favorites, especially in the early Beatles catalog.