The U.S. Senate approved a continuing resolution today to fund the federal government at current levels through March 4, 2011. Both the cloture motion and the bill itself passed by large bipartisan majorities; Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley voted for the cloture motion and the funding resolution. Harkin slammed Republicans for blocking the fiscal year 2011 omnibus bill last week, because unlike the continuing resolution approved today, the omnibus bill would have increased funding for programs such as Head Start, child care subsidies, meals for seniors and drugs for AIDS patients. The House of Representatives is expected to approve the continuing resolution later today to stop the government from running out of money at midnight. UPDATE: The House approved the spending bill by 193 to 165, with 75 representatives not voting. All five Iowans voted, and they split along party lines.

A bigger problem will come in March, when House Republicans force through major cuts in domestic spending (probably with the eager cooperation of President Barack Obama). Those will be a drag on the economy, erasing any stimulative effect from the lousy deal Obama struck on extending the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the House gave final approval to the food safety bill today on a mostly party-line vote of 215 to 144. Iowa’s representatives split the usual way, with Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell voting for the bill and Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voting against it. I am still surprised that the Senate resurrected the food safety bill on Sunday. I have yet to see any explanation for why Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma agreed to let it pass. Coburn had been that bill’s most vocal opponent in the Senate all year. It’s not as if Coburn suddenly decided to stop being a jerk; he appears ready to block the 9/11 responders bill from becoming law during the lame-duck session. Even some Fox News commentators are upset about that political maneuver.

The Senate took a step toward ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) today. Eleven Republicans joined all Democrats present to approve a cloture motion on that treaty, which the U.S. and Russia signed in April. Grassley voted with most of his GOP colleagues against the cloture motion on START; he has voted for various Republican amendments offered to the treaty. I haven’t seen any statement from his office explaining his opposition. The last START expired in December 2009, and we need to ratify the new treaty in order to resume inspecting Russian nuclear bases. There could hardly be a more important national security issue. Ronald Reagan’s former chief arms control negotiator said last month that Iran and North Korea were the “only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified.”

When the 84th General Assembly convenes on January 10, the Iowa House will have 60 Republicans and 40 Democrats. House Republicans selected leaders and committee chairs last month, and Democrats finished choosing leaders and ranking committee members in the past two weeks.

All Iowa House leaders, committee chairs and ranking members can be found after the jump. I’ve included a link to a short biography for each state representative, as well as the year the person was first elected to the Iowa House and the district he or she represents.  

Three attorneys who are challenging last month’s judicial retention elections today withdrew their request for an injunction to allow Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit to continue serving after December 31. The attorneys filed their lawsuit last week, saying the retention vote was illegal because the Iowa Constitution stipulates that judges “shall at such judicial election stand for retention in office on a separate ballot which shall submit to the question of whether such judge shall be retained in office […].” Lynda Waddington reports today that the lawsuit will go forward, but plaintiffs dropped their request to let Ternus, Baker and Streit continue to serve after learning that “the Iowa Judicial Branch and the justices removed from service were not in favor of it.”

A court will consider this lawsuit sometime next year. I believe it will go nowhere for reasons I discussed here. Iowa has been holding judicial retention elections in conjunction with general elections for nearly five decades. No one has ever demanded that voters be provided special ballots for the retention vote. IowaVoter points out that when Iowans approved the constitutional amendment on replacing judicial elections in 1962, lever machines rather than paper ballots were widely used. I share IowaVoter’s reading of the relevant passage in the constitution: it means that there must be a separate ballot line for each judge, so voters aren’t asked to retain or not retain the judges as a group.

Which do you think will get shot down first, Bleeding Heartland readers? This lawsuit challenging the legality of the retention vote, or statehouse Republicans’ efforts to impeach the remaining four Supreme Court justices?

Any comments about Iowa’s judicial system are welcome in this thread. I believe an impeachment spectacle during the 2011 legislative session will only make it harder for Governor-elect Terry Branstad to get lawmakers to pass the modest reform he favors (requiring partisan balance for judicial nominating commissions).

Last week Larry Noble resigned from the Iowa Senate, effective December 17, because Governor-elect Terry Branstad selected him to be commissioner of the Iowa Department of Public Safety in the next administration. After the jump I’ve posted Noble’s official biography from his campaign website. He is well qualified to lead the Department of Public Safety and will have no trouble winning confirmation from his former Iowa Senate colleagues.

Noble’s resignation leaves Republicans with 22 seats in the Iowa Senate. Democrats are assured of a slim majority in the chamber with 26 seats. A January 4 special election in Senate district 48 will determine the successor to Kim Reynolds, who resigned to become lieutenant governor. Sometime this week, Governor Chet Culver will set a date for the special election to replace Noble. The election will take place within 45 days of Culver’s announcement, probably in late January.

Senate district 35 covers most of the northern half of Polk County (map). It includes the Des Moines suburbs of Ankeny and Johnston, as well as Grimes, Polk City, Alleman, Elkhart and rural areas north of I-80. The area has experienced rapid population growth in the past decade and leans strongly Republican. The seat was last vacant in 2006, when Jeff Lamberti stepped down to run for Congress. Iowa Democrats recruited Ankeny Mayor Merle Johnson and invested heavily in the race, but Noble won by 52 percent to 48 percent in a Democratic wave year. Democrats did not nominate a candidate against Noble when he came up for re-election in 2010. As of December 1, Senate district 35 had 23,450 registered Republicans, 18,065 registered Democrats and 19,017 no-party voters.

So far no one has announced plans to run in Senate district 35. Democrats and Republicans will hold special district nominating conventions to select candidates.

UPDATE: In the comments, Bleeding Heartland user nick29 posted a press release from Jim Gocke, who will seek the Republican nomination for this Senate seat. Gocke is a law partner of Jeff Lamberti.

DECEMBER 23 UPDATE: Culver set the election for January 18.

Bleeding Heartland readers may recall that Senate Democrats imperiled the food safety bill, S510, by forgetting to put revenue-raising language in a bill that originated in the House of Representatives. Senate leaders tried to salvage the situation by adding the food safety language to the massive ominbus spending bill Congress was expected to approve last week. However, Senate Republicans torpedoed the omnibus bill, leaving few options for getting the food safety bill to President Barack Obama’s desk before the new Congress convenes.

According to Cox Radio reporter Jamie Dupree, the food safety bill came “back from the dead” on Sunday. The Senate took the food safety language from the continuing resolution on spending that had already passed the House and inserted it into a “Cash for Clunkers” bill the House had previously approved. (The food safety language replaced the Cash for Clunkers language.) The Senate then approved the new bill by unanimous consent. Amazingly, no Republican gummed up the works on that, not even the food safety bill’s deadly enemy Tom Coburn. The bill now goes back to the House, where Dupree says approval is expected this week. UPDATE: The Hill’s Alexander Bolton and Matthew Jaffe of ABC News report on the Senate maneuvering.

I had almost given up on this bill passing. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good step forward with bipartisan support in Congress. Both Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted for the bill a few weeks ago in the Senate.  

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

It’s the last shopping weekend before Christmas, so I’m reposting my favorite no-clutter holiday gift ideas after the jump. If you’re looking for a more traditional gift for a child, I recommend card games, jigsaw puzzles or something without batteries that’s suited for open-ended play, like blocks or erector sets. Other presents my kids loved this year: a mini hydroponics lab for growing sprouted plants, the Perplexus, one of the Lego board games, and the Zillio, which can be played in many different ways as they grow older. Their aunts, uncles and grandparents have excellent taste!

My kids love listening to audio books too. You can find check out many of these from the library to do a “test run” before buying as a gift. Some of our favorites:

the Frog and Toad books (read by the author, Arnold Lobel, perfect for kids 2-4)

the Usborne Farmyard Tales (CD comes with a fantastic picture book of 20 stories, perfect for toddlers or preschoolers)

Nate the Great collected stories by Marjorie Weinman Sharmat (read by John Lavelle)

The Marvelous Land of Oz by Frank Baum (read by Liza Ross)

any of the Magic Tree House collections (read by the author, Mary Pope Osborne)

any of Beverly Cleary’s Henry Huggins books (read by Neil Patrick Harris)

The Moffats by Eleanor Estes (full-cast audio recording)

George’s Secret Key to the Universe and George’s Cosmic Treasure Hunt, by Lucy Hawking with Stephen Hawking (read by James Goode)

any of the Diary of a Wimpy Kid books by Jeff Kinney (read by Ramon de Ocampo)

any of the Harry Potter books by J.K.Rowling (read by Jim Dale)

Star Wars: The Original Radio Drama (full-cast recording, expanded version of the first Star Wars movie, plus The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi)

The U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion on the DREAM Act today by a vote of 55 to 41. At least 60 yes votes were needed to move forward the bill, which would give some undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children a path to citizenship. Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted yes, as did most of the Democratic caucus. Chuck Grassley voted no, along with most Senate Republicans. Six cowardly and mean-spirited Democrats voted no: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. (Correction: it looks like Manchin missed the vote, but his office released a statement this morning saying he could not support the bill because it didn’t require people seeking citizenship to receive a college degree. Jackass.)

Only three Republicans voted yes on the DREAM Act: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Bob Bennett of Utah. Fake GOP moderates Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois all voted against the bill. Sickening. President Barack Obama nominally supports the DREAM Act, but as far as I can tell, the White House did nothing to convince wavering senators to vote for it.

After the DREAM Act failed, the Senate moved to a cloture motion on a stand-alone bill to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. The Senate approved that cloture motion 63 to 33, with Iowa’s senators splitting the usual way (Harkin for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Grassley against). The Senate will vote on the bill itself early next week later today, and it should easily pass.

UPDATE: Click here for the roll call on the DREAM Act cloture motion. The roll call for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell vote is here. Congratulations, Chuck Grassley, you put yourself on the wrong side of history twice in one day.

SECOND UPDATE: The bill repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell passed the Senate by 65 to 31 (roll call). Harkin yes, Grassley no, of course. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s statements on the DREAM Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Grassley’s office hasn’t issued a statement on either vote; typically he sends out a press release every time the Senate considers major legislation.

Harkin’s statement on DREAM noted that the original 2003 bill had 15 Republican co-sponsors, which prompted me to look them up here. Lo and behold, there’s our Chuck Grassley, one of 47 sponsors of Senator Orrin Hatch’s “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003.” No wonder he doesn’t want to explain his vote today to block the bill from consideration.

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?