After a not-very-wet June, this summer’s weather has turned disastrous across much of Iowa. Many communities in the eastern part of the state were devastated in July. The dam failure that ruined Lake Delhi attracted most of the media attention, but extensive property damage occurred in many other communities, including Waterloo, Oelwein and Maquoketa.

Central Iowa has had close to 10 inches of rain in the past few days, and floodwaters in Ames are higher than they were in 1993 or 2008. Parts of I-35 and Highway 30 near Ames were closed on August 11, and the city’s water treatment plant is not operational, so there is a boil order for drinking water.

Oskaloosa, Fort Dodge and parts of the Des Moines area have also experienced some terrible flash flooding.

A 16-year-old girl died after her car was one of three swept off the road near Altoona. Amazingly, 10 of her friends escaped. Please don’t try to drive across roads covered by water. Most people who drown during floods die in their cars.

The immediate concern is keeping people safe and restoring damaged property, but at some point Iowa policy-makers need to do something to improve our floodplain management. During this year’s legislative session, lobbyists for city officials and chambers of commerce were able to block even minimal steps recommended by the state’s Water Resources Coordinating Council.

I noticed that uber-hack Krusty Konservative is blaming I-JOBS for failing to prevent this summer’s flooding. The reality is we need to invest more in flood prevention. State Senator Rob Hogg of Cedar Rapids recently estimated that for “about $700 million over the next 10 to 20 years […] we can hold thousands of acre-feet of water in our watershed, reap many economic and environmental benefits, and avoid much of the expense and trauma of having to clean up our homes, businesses and neighborhoods again when the next flood happens.”

This thread is for any comments related to the floods.

UPDATE: Governor Chet Culver discussed the flooding on August 12:

The historic flooding that hit Ames over the last two days, as well as floods that have ravaged many eastern Iowa cities over the past few years, are the “new normal” and a sign the state must improve flood-prevention efforts, Gov. Chet Culver said at a press conference Thursday afternoon.

“We are seeing unprecedented flooding – the flooding in Ames is worse than ’93,” Culver said. “Anything the state can do in terms of flood mitigation will be done. We can be smarter in terms of planning and conservation efforts. We need to be aggressive in terms of taking steps regarding flood mitigation.”  

Radio Iowa brings some bad news:

The head of the state’s emergency management division says areas of the state which are dealing with the aftermath of flooding today may see another surge of flood water within the next two days. Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Managment administrator David Miller says the National Weather Service predicts rain will fall north of Highway 30 within the next 48 hours.

“Frankly things are pretty well saturated and we have a very narrow window of opportunitiy to mitigate any future damages, so we’ve encouraged local (officials) to look at their critical infrastructure,” Miller says. “What needs to be safeguarded now?”

Miller is urging local governments to take steps “ahead of the storm” to protect drinking water systems and waste-water treatment plants.  “If we get more precipitation than anticipated, we could have severe flooding,” Miller says.  “If it comes further south than what the Weather Service is currently predicting then, again, we could have severe problems, so we’re paying attention to that.”

Yesterday the House of Representatives approved and President Barack Obama signed a $26.1 billion package to support state education and Medicaid budgets in the current fiscal year. The bill passed the House by a 247 to 161 vote. Iowa’s House delegation split on party lines, as with the 2009 federal stimulus bill and previous legislation designed to support public sector jobs in the states. Iowa will receive about $96.5 million of the $10 billion in education funding, enough to save an estimated 1,800 teachers’ jobs.

The bill also contains $16.1 billion in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage or FMAP funding, including about $128 million to support Iowa’s Medicaid budget in the 2011 fiscal year. Last week I read conflicting reports about how much Medicaid assistance Iowa would receive, but staffers for Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack confirmed yesterday that $128 million is the correct figure. That’s a bit more than Iowa legislators were counting on for FMAP funding in the 2011 budget. Extra federal spending on Medicaid also “has an economic benefit for the state of Iowa far greater than the federal government’s initial investment,” according to Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson.

For the last several days, I have been searching for some comment on this legislation from Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad. I’ve found nothing in news clips, and his campaign has not issued a press release on the federal fiscal aid since the Senate approved the bill on August 4.

Branstad rails against “one-time sources” of funding to support the state budget, but he has nothing to say about $96.5 million for Iowa schools and $128 million for Iowans dependent on Medicaid services.

Branstad is happy to run false advertising about the number of teachers’ jobs supposedly lost in Iowa, but he has nothing to say when federal action saves a significant number of teachers’ jobs. The issue is a bit awkward for Branstad, because Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted against the fiscal aid bill in the House, just as Republican Chuck Grassley voted no in the Senate.

Perhaps Branstad lacks the courage to go beyond vague campaign rhetoric about excessive government spending. It’s easy to talk abstractly about “one-time” funding, but risky to slam government support for education and Medicaid. CNN’s latest nationwide poll, which was in the field from August 6 through August 10, asked respondents, “Do you favor or oppose a bill in which the federal government would provide 26 billion dollars to state governments to pay for Medicaid benefits and the salaries of public school teachers or other government workers?” 60 percent of respondents favored such a bill, while only 38 percent opposed it.

Speaking of conspicuous silence from Branstad, when will he tell us how he plans to keep his contradictory promises to cut state spending by 15 percent while having the state pay a larger share of mental health and school funding?

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

The Republican State Leadership Committee, a group focused on state legislative elections, hopes to win control of the Iowa House and Senate in order to “neutralize” Iowa’s nonpartisan redistricting, according to a July 2010 strategy memo of the RSLC’s “REDMAP” program. The memo (pdf) sets a goal of creating “20-25 new Republican Congressional Districts through the redistricting process.” Iowa is among 12 states targeted in the REDMAP program, because our state will lose one of its five Congressional districts after the 2010 census.

The REDMAP Political Report says in a chart on page 6 that if Republicans win the Iowa House and Senate, the “Congressional impact” would be to “neutralize the redistricting process,” since Iowa’s legislature “can override” the state’s redistricting commission. In our state’s unique redistricting system, the Legislative Services Agency prepares a map using

only population data to propose districts that are as close to equal and as compact as possible.

They are banned from considering data such as voter registration or voter performance, and they don’t have access to the addresses of incumbent legislators and congressmen until after the map is prepared.

The legislature can accept or reject the proposed map, but cannot amend it. If the RSLC is suggesting that Democrats would tamper with redistricting unless Republicans win control of the state legislature, their fear-mongering is misguided. Speaking to Mike Glover of the Associated Press last month, Democratic House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal confirmed that they will not attempt to change the redistricting system.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen also praised Iowa’s redistricting process in comments to Glover. But the RSLC memo leaves open the question of whether a Republican-controlled legislature would seek to override the commission. In 2001, the Republican-controlled Iowa legislature rejected the Legislative Services Agency’s first map but accepted the second. Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 described the objections raised against the first 2001 redistricting proposal.

Since Iowa Republican leaders are eager to tamper with our state’s highly regarded judicial selection process, it wouldn’t be a stretch for them to mess around with our redistricting too.

The best way to prevent Republican interference with next year’s redistricting is to keep them in the Iowa House and Senate minority. I encourage Bleeding Heartland readers to volunteer for or donate to one or more Democratic candidates in statehouse districts. (It’s easy to contribute through ActBlue.) The following candidates in competitive races could especially use your help:

Democratic incumbents targeted by Republicans: McKinley Bailey (HD 9), John Beard (HD 16), Andrew Wenthe (HD 18), Doris Kelley (HD 20), Gene Ficken (HD 23), Donovan Olson (HD 48), Eric Palmer (HD 75), Nathan Reichert (HD 80), Phyllis Thede (HD 81), Larry Marek (HD 89), Curt Hanson (HD 90), Mike Reasoner (HD 95), Rich Olive (SD 5), Bill Heckroth (SD 9), Staci Appel (SD 37), Becky Schmitz (SD 45).

Democratic candidates defending open seats: David Dawson (HD 1), Chris Hall (HD 2), John Wittneben (HD 7), Susan Bangert (HD 8), Kurt Meyer (HD 14), Anesa Kajtazovic (HD 21), Mary Wolfe (HD 26), Dan Kelley (HD 41), Shari Carnahan (HD 84), Rick Mullin (SD 1), Tod Bowman (SD 13).

Democrats running for Republican-held seats: Selden Spencer (HD 10), Mark Seidl (HD 37), Dan Muhlbauer (HD 51), Andrew McDowell (HD 59), Scott Ourth (HD 74), Kurt Hubler (HD 99).

Terry Branstad’s campaign announced today that it had accepted three invitations to debate Governor Chet Culver this fall:

1. Lee Enterprises/KCAU-TV/WQAD-TV Gubernatorial Debate. Time and date to be determined. Sioux City, IA

2. The Cedar Rapids Gazette/KCRG-TV 9 Gubernatorial Debate

Thursday, October 7, 2010, 7 p.m. Cedar Rapids, IA

3. Des Moines Register/Iowa Public Television Debate

October 21, 2010, Noon, Iowa Public Television Studios, Johnston, IA

Branstad’s running mate, Kim Reynolds, is also willing to debate Lieutenant Patty Judge once at a time and place to be determined. Maybe by then Reynolds will be able to explain how Republicans would have balanced the current-year budget without dipping into state reserves or using one-time federal funds.

I expect the lieutenant governor’s debate to be entertaining. Judge speaks with a lot of confidence. Reynolds is a polished speaker, but not when she gets knocked off her prepared talking points.

I expect Branstad to play it safe in the debates; he’s ahead in the polls and mainly needs to avoid any huge blunder. I look forward to watching him explain in Cedar Rapids why his own state bonding was justified, but not I-JOBS borrowing to rebuild after the largest floods in Iowa history.

If I were Culver, I would practice ways to get under Branstad’s skin the way Bob Vander Plaats did during the Republican primary debates. But that strategy can only work if Culver keeps his cool, which may be challenging given how freely Branstad lies about the incumbent’s record. Culver will have to find ways to refute phony Republican numbers without seeming to fly off the handle. A little humor might help.

AUGUST 24 UPDATE: The Sioux City debate will take place on September 14:

The Sioux City Journal and Lee Enterprises are hosting the debate with KCAU, the ABC affiliate here in the metro. The one-hour debate will air from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. on KCAU, WOI in Des Moines and WHBF in the Quad Cities. Besides the Journal, other Lee papers participating include the Quad City Times, Waterloo Courier and Mason City Globe Gazette. To give instantaneous coverage, the papers will have a live webcast and running blog during the debate.

Republican Congressional candidate Brad Zaun has promised to give voters 14 reasons not to re-elect 14-year incumbent Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third district. Last week Zaun unveiled reason number 1: Boswell “has been listed as a ‘follower’ according to the non-partisan website www.GovTrack.us. […] Boswell has sponsored only 66 bills since January 7, 1997, and 63 never made it out of committee. Only three of Boswell’s bills were successfully enacted…and of those three, two were for renaming federal buildings.”

Bleeding Heartland readers who are familiar with the workings of the Iowa Senate may be amused by backbencher Zaun calling someone else a “follower.” Technically, Zaun is one of four assistant Iowa Senate Republican leaders; that’s a four-way tie for the number 3 spot in an 18-member caucus. He isn’t exactly a commanding presence at the capitol. Boswell was much more influential as Iowa Senate president in the 1990s before his first election to Congress. But I digress.

Zaun misleads by implying members of Congress can only be judged by the bills they sponsor, and I’ll have more to say on that after the jump. First, let’s see how Iowa’s two Republicans in the House of Representatives look through GovTrack’s prism.  

While Terry Branstad continues his so-called “truth in budgeting” tour around Iowa, he and his campaign staff deliberately spread false information about Governor Chet Culver’s record. Last week Branstad’s campaign released perhaps its most deceptive advertisement yet, and that’s saying something.

When numerous specific claims in the ad were debunked, Branstad didn’t apologize or pull down the ad in order to correct its mistakes. His conduct during the past week proves that he doesn’t inadvertently misstate facts during his stump speeches or under the pressure of a debate. He appears to have made a political calculation: don’t worry about the truth if lying helps him win an election. Culver’s campaign did a good job identifying the latest ad’s falsehoods here, but let’s take a closer look at some of the problems with Branstad’s campaign narrative.

What’s on your mind this weekend? We’re already looking forward to the Iowa State Fair, which runs from August 12-22. We may catch the state fair parade on August 11 if it’s not too hot.

Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status is secure under the presidential nominating calendar Republican National Committee members approved yesterday.

The vote passed by a two-thirds majority, a requirement for the measure drafters included to lend to its acceptance from RNC members. The measure received 104 votes of the 144 members voting.

The caucuses would likely be held Feb. 6, under the schedule, followed in February by the New Hampshire primary, caucuses in Nevada and the South Carolina primary.

All other states would be allowed to hold their primaries and caucuses in March or April. States going in March would be required to apportion their nominating delegates proportional to the vote a candidate received in that state. April states could award their delegates on a winner-take-all basis, an incentive for states hoping to be seen as delivering the nomination.

Any state that violates the proposed calendar would lose half its RNC delegates. What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Is that a big enough penalty to deter a large state from trying to jump ahead of Iowa?

I hope the calendar sticks so staffers and volunteers aren’t forced to do canvassing and phone-banking between Christmas and New Year’s Day, like we did before the January 3, 2008 caucuses.

At least two potential Republican presidential candidates are coming to Iowa in the next couple of weeks. Former Senator Rick Santorum is headlining a fundraiser for attorney general candidate Brenna Findley in Sioux Center on August 17, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is coming to the Iowa State Fair. I can’t believe Santorum would think about running for president after losing re-election in a purple state by double digits. I’m still shaking my head over the warm reception Iowa Republicans give Pawlenty despite his record on fiscal issues and state borrowing. Several of Pawlenty’s other ideas strike me as proposals only the hard-core GOP base could love, like cutting entitlement spending to pay for extending George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: I forgot that Newt Gingrich is coming to Des Moines next weekend to raise money for a Republican women’s group. Continuing his habit of being wrong about everything, Newt recently condemned Shirley Sherrod as a racist and a week later denounced the Obama administration for rushing to judgment about Sherrod. He also offered an “egregious and purposeful misreading of medieval history” as an argument against allowing a mosque to be built at the “Ground Zero” site in New York City.

Bob Vander Plaats announced at a press conference today that he will not run for governor as an independent but will lead a public campaign against retaining the three Iowa Supreme Court justices whose names are on the ballot this November. Vander Plaats didn’t say who will fund the campaign, but promised more details on his “grassroots” effort next week. James Lynch reported yesterday that the Republican Governors Association will fund Vander Plaats’ crusade, which RGA officials consider “a model to be duplicated in other states.”

It’s been obvious for weeks that Vander Plaats wasn’t planning an independent bid for governor. The only question was what kind of face-saving deal would be struck between the bitter Republican primary rivals. The rumor mill suggested Vander Plaats might endorse Branstad in exchange for a promised future job. Instead, we have a different truce: Vander Plaats formally stands true to his principles by not endorsing Branstad. In return, the RGA (Branstad’s largest campaign donor by far) will pay for Vander Plaats’ revenge mission against Iowa judges.

Branstad has avoided publicly urging Iowans to vote against retaining the Supreme Court justices, and he didn’t have the guts today to take a stand for or against unseating them over a political dispute. In a written statement, Branstad said, “This is an issue on which Bob has often spoke with great passion and I understand his desire to pursue this path.”

How different from the Branstad of May 2009, who said “I do respect the existence of the separation of powers” when asked whether he regretted appointing two of the current justices, including Mark Cady, author of the Varnum v Brien decision.

The old Branstad wasn’t planning to run for governor again. The new Branstad doesn’t mind exploiting resentment over same-sex marriage for his own political gain. If that ends the careers of three good judges while elevating demagogues who don’t understand judicial review, so be it. Branstad appointee and Chief Justice Marsha Ternus has said this year’s retention elections will test Iowans’ commitment to an impartial judiciary. Branstad won’t join the right side in this fight.

On the contrary, Branstad has endorsed changing Iowa’s highly-regarded merit-based system for selecting judges. He has an interest in creating vacancies he could fill if elected governor, and he would rather pander to the religious right than allow judicial selection commissions to keep doing the job they’ve been doing for almost four decades. Some Iowa Republicans have advocated bringing back judicial elections or extremely stupid new restrictions on judicial deliberations. Branstad should know better than to play with fire on this issue.

Iowa House and Senate Republicans are probably overjoyed by today’s news. Vander Plaats will be working to turn out social conservatives who might not be thrilled with the party’s nominee for governor. That has to help GOP candidates in some of the battleground legislative districts. On the other hand, moderates may be turned off by the campaign against the judges. A Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa Republican primary voters taken in June by Selzer and Associates found that 35 percent of respondents said some Iowans had “overreacted” to the gay marriage issue. The same survey found that 45 percent of likely Republican primary voters were against voting to remove Supreme Court judges because of their decision on marriage.

I’m concerned about the retention elections, because the judges are unable to campaign on their own behalf. Those who support judicial independence, such as the State Bar Association, are unlikely to match spending against the judges by conservative groups and the Republican Governors Association. Fortunately, Governor Chet Culver made his position loud and clear today:

“I support Iowa’s Supreme Court justices and more importantly, I support our judicial nomination and appointment process as it stands today.

“Iowa is known for having the fairest judge selection system in the country. We oppose efforts to make choosing our judges more political, more ideological.

“Terry Branstad and his running mate Kim Reynolds have made it clear that they want to change our system. Branstad has gone so far as to highlight Reynolds’s support for changing the state’s constitution, allowing the governor to reject all nominees sent by the judicial nominating committee, requiring the committee to send names again and again until the governor finds an appointee that supports a certain political agenda.

“This campaign is about the future of our state and about choosing to move forward, instead of backwards. The best way to do that is not to focus on ideological battles but to bring Iowans together by investing in our future to create jobs, continue our national leadership in renewable energy and build 21st Century schools.”

John Deeth seems optimistic that the Vander Plaats crusade will fail. He makes a good point today:

Just for the record, here’s how the math usually works out on these things: the judges almost always win [retention] by an 80%-20% margin, with 40% or so of voters just skipping the contests entirely. I don’t see BVP swaying a typical independent voter. If he has any impact it’s on the margins, lowering that undervote percentage.

In [the] 1992 ERA vote, I learned a tough but basic lesson: Loudly reminding your people to vote Yes in an otherwise low-profile race simultaneously reminds the other side to vote No. The polarity is reversed here but BVP faces the same dilemma.

In 2004, activists on the religious right “mounted an unsuccessful campaign to oust Woodbury County District Court Judge Jeffrey Neary in 2004 based on Neary’s decision to grant a divorce to two lesbians who had entered into a civil union in Vermont.” Here’s hoping Vander Plaats fails too.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. Do you think Branstad can get by with weasel wording on the retention vote for the rest of the campaign? Or will he be forced later to come out explicitly for or against keeping Justices Ternus, Michael Streit and David Baker on the high court?

UPDATE: A statement from the American Judicature Society is after the jump. Iowa’s judiciary has been recognized as among the best in the country.

AUGUST 11 UPDATE: How cowardly is Terry Branstad?

“This is a ballot issue, and Gov. Branstad believes this is an issue on which people need to decide for themselves,” spokesman Tim Albrecht said today. “He respects the secret ballot and believes people should vote their conscience.”

Brad Zaun’s public record faced little scrutiny during the seven-way Republican primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district, except for one time when Dave Funk targeted Zaun’s vote for an anti-bullying bill in the Iowa Senate. During the general election campaign, however, Zaun will have to defend his record.

Yesterday Representative Leonard Boswell’s campaign highlighted Zaun’s knee-jerk defense of Lynn Walding in February, when Governor Chet Culver let Walding know he would not be reappointed as head of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. Zaun told the Sioux City Journal,

“I’m very upset about this,” Zaun said. “It seems to me that because of the dysfunction that’s going on in the governor’s office that he’s just the fall guy. I think the governor should reconsider because I think he was one of the best, most qualified people that works for the governor. I find it very disappointing.”

If Zaun had tried to find out why Culver declined to reappoint Walding, he might have learned about excessive spending and strange personnel decisions in the Alcoholic Beverages Division under Walding’s leadership. Those became public knowledge last month, when the state auditor’s office released a report on the Alcoholic Beverages Division in 2008 and 2009. However, Walding’s extravagant purchases and other actions raised concerns in the governor’s office two years ago, prompting the Department of Management to impose new controls on the division. The Des Moines Register reported on August 5 that Walding “sought to discipline a state worker who blew the whistle on potential misspending at the agency” and was seen shredding boxes of documents before he left state government in April.

Zaun seized an opportunity to bash a Democratic governor without doing any fact-finding on whether Walding deserved to keep his job. Absurdly, he declared Walding to be one of the “best, most-qualified” people in state government. Tell that to the workers who feared retaliation if they came forward with complaints about money wasted. Residents of Iowa’s third district need a representative who does his homework before mouthing off.

I posted the Boswell campaign’s statement after the jump.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Elana Kagan as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court today on a 63-37 vote. As he did on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley voted against confirmation. He explained his reasoning in more detail this week, and I’ve posted his prepared floor statement after the jump. It amuses me to see Grassley question Kagan’s “commitment to the Constitution and rule of law” when he is open to revising the clear, unambiguous meaning of the 14th Amendment because of current Republican views on immigration.

Last summer Grassley voted against confirming President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Before that, Grassley had never opposed confirming a president’s nominee for the high court.

Five Senate Republicans voted to confirm Kagan: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the only Democrat to vote no. In fact, NPR reported that Nelson just became the first Democrat to vote against a Democratic president’s Supreme Court nominee since Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall in 1967.

UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin’s statement on the Kagan confirmation is after the jump.

Flood stories and news regularly focus on structural solutions to flood prevention – levees, dams and other “infrastructure” that attempts to channel higher and higher volumes of water into smaller and smaller waterways.

Over 90% of Iowa’s landscape is used for agricultural production. Soil conservation is vitally important to the future of Iowa farming and Iowa’s economy. Today, Iowa farms lose an average of five tons of our world-famous soil per acre each year due to erosion. Protecting our land and our amazing landscape must be a top priority – our health, our economy and our quality of life are at stake. The protection and improvement of wetlands has the potential to significantly reduce and mitigate the potential for future flooding.

Iowa Journal – Wetlands as Flood Control
NRCS – Restoring Iowa Wetlands

Good news: the U.S. Senate overcame an attempt to filibuster a bill containing $26.1 billion in fiscal aid to state governments today. About $10 billion will support state education budgets in order to save teaching jobs. The other $16.1 billion will support state Medicaid budgets according to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage or FMAP formula, which was originally part of the 2009 stimulus package. The Senate’s final vote on this bill is set for August 5, and it will easily gain more than the 50 votes needed for passage. Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to call the House of Representatives back from August recess in order to approve this bill next week.

Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin was a co-sponsor of this bill. Senator Chuck Grassley joined Republicans who tried to block it from getting an up-or-down floor vote. I haven’t seen a statement from his office explaining why. The bill does not add to the deficit, because expenses are offset by revenue-raising measures:

Senate Democrats said the $26 billion bill would be paid in part by revenue raising changes in tax law. Senate Democrats said the modifications would curtail abuses of the U.S. foreign tax credit system. The bill would also end the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit and would return in 2014 food stamp benefits to levels set before last year’s federal stimulus plan.

I’m not happy about cutting future food stamp benefits, but there may be opportunities to restore that funding in other bills. This federal fiscal aid is urgently needed to prevent teacher layoffs in the school year that’s about to begin.  

Republican gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad has been touring Iowa this summer with a contradictory campaign message. On the one hand, he blasts education cuts that have eliminated some teaching positions (he exaggerates the number of teacher layoffs, but that’s a topic for another post). On the other hand, Branstad criticizes the use of “one-time money” from the federal government to support the state budget. He promises to veto any budget that would spend more than 99 percent of projected state revenues. Branstad has never explained what he would have cut to make up for the federal stimulus money, but other questions are on my mind today, namely:

1. Does Branstad think Grassley did the right thing in trying to stop this fiscal aid package from reaching Iowa and other states?

2. Iowa’s budget for fiscal year 2011 assumes about $120 million in additional Medicaid funding under the FMAP program. If elected governor, would Branstad try to return that money to the federal government?

3. Would Branstad reject federal education funding that is targeted for saving teachers’ jobs in the upcoming academic year?

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: A statement from Senator Harkin’s office says this bill would provide “at least $128 million in additional Medicaid funding” to Iowa in the current fiscal year. Harkin also said,

“This vote came down to one thing: priorities.  Today, a majority of Senators proved that our priority is helping those who are the backbone of this country, America’s teachers and our families, to weather the continuing effects of the great recession.  And we provide this funding without adding one dime to the deficit.

“This is a crisis of the first order.  Not since the Great Depression have our public schools faced the prospect of such massive layoffs.  With this fund, we will preserve tens of thousands of education jobs that states can use for retaining or hiring employees at the pre-K and K-12 levels.

“Also with the funding, we provide critical assistance to states, whose budgets are already stretched to the limit, to protect Medicaid.  This six month extension of federally-matched funding will allow states to continue health benefits for some of the nation’s most needy.”

SECOND UPDATE: Jennifer Jacobs reported somewhat different numbers for the Des Moines Register:

A federal spending plan that advanced in Congress Wednesday would route $83.1 million in extra money to help Iowa pay for children’s services and payments to hospitals and nursing homes.

But the Iowa Legislature banked on getting an $116 million in extra federal Medicaid money in the first six months of next year.

That means the state budget will be short $32.9 million – or short $116 million if the bill fails to pass Congress altogether, according to the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency. Medicaid is the government health insurance plan for the poor. […]

The measure would give states $16 billion to help cover their Medicaid budgets, and $10 billion to extend programs enacted in last year’s stimulus law to help preserve the jobs of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees.

Iowa would get about $96.5 million in the jobs piece, which would protect about 1,500 jobs, said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat.

Keep in mind that Iowa’s budget for fiscal year 2011 has an ending balance of $182.6 million, providing a cushion in case some expected revenue doesn’t materialize. Also, state revenues for the first month of the current fiscal year exceeded projections. Falling short $32.9 million in federal Medicaid assistance isn’t ideal, but it is manageable and far better than falling $116 million short, as would happen if Grassley and other Republicans got their way.

THIRD UPDATE: The Senate gave final approval to this bill on August 5 by a 61-39 vote. Grassley voted no along with most of the Republican caucus.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty toured eastern Iowa over the weekend to raise money for several Iowa House Republican leaders and state Senate candidate Bill Dix. It was his fourth Iowa trip during the past year. Since Pawlenty is laying the groundwork for a future presidential bid, journalists covering his latest visit focused on what he is doing for Iowa Republicans, as well as his views on foreign policy, government spending and the economy.

I’m more interested in the way Iowa Republicans embraced Pawlenty. Naturally, they liked his message about retaking the state legislature, and GOP House leaders can really use the campaign cash. But it’s surreal to watch Republicans promise their serious consideration for Pawlenty as a presidential candidate when you compare his record with the case conservatives make against Iowa Governor Chet Culver.

…in the “worst Republican you know” contest, that is:

Two progressive political action committees, Blue America and Americans For America, have teamed up to do a series of video ads highlighting the worst the GOP has to offer. […]

This week we’re considering five more– and there’ll be others between now and November, of course. First up, though are five especially unsavory Republicans, 4 House incumbents– Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Steve King (R-IA)– plus one challenger for an open seat, Karl Rove protégé and disgraced ex-U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin.

Here’s how you vote: just make a donation on the page dedicated to the culprit of your choice. If you click on the picture below, you go directly to their page. Because we’re progressives and not conservatives, a one dollar donation equals the same single vote as a one hundred dollar donation. […]

[…] all of the money raised through this little contest will be used to help voters understand that there’s a difference between the Republican and the Democrat running for the seat […]. Who do you think is the worst of the worst?

Click here to read the whole post at Down With Tyranny, or go directly to this ActBlue page if you want to vote with your wallet for King. I gotta say, he has tough competition in this contest.

If you’re tired of seeing someone from Iowa repeatedly named one of the worst members of Congress, please support King’s Democratic challenger, Matt Campbell. He’s opening a second campaign office in Council Bluffs this week and has several public events scheduled (details here). Campbell’s been campaigning actively around the fifth district this summer. I saw on his e-mail blast of July 30 that he has several recent high-profile endorsers, including Norm Waitt Jr. (co-founder of Gateway Computers), former Democratic Congressman Berkley Bedell and former Republican Lieutenant Governor Art Neu: “Art sees the need for new leadership that will work in a constructive manner to benefit Western Iowa.” Campbell’s campaign website is here; you can donate or sign up to volunteer for the campaign, or just learn more about our Democratic nominee.  

Last week I discussed the strangely low fundraising numbers reported by some Republican candidates in battleground Iowa House and Senate districts. Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican blog is worried about the “lackluster fundraising numbers of the House Republicans,” not so much by candidates running in the open seats but by the GOP leaders:

Obviously, party leaders will always prefer candidates who can raise money to fund their campaigns, but very few candidates actually raise enough money to be self-sufficient.

This means that the leadership team in both chambers must raise money to help win or protect seats. House Republicans are not hitting on all cylinders in this area. […]

At this time in 2008, [Chris] Rants’ five-person leadership team had raised over $437,000. [Kraig] Paulsen’s seven-person team has raised significantly less, bringing in $364,000.

Another problem for the House Republican effort is that two of the seven-member leadership team are facing stiff competition this fall. Representatives Renee Schulte and Dave Deyoe both occupy seats that are very expensive in which to campaign, and both will have to use every dollar that they raise on their own races instead of helping others. If Schulte and Deyoe’s fundraising totals are subtracted from the leadership team’s total, it means that Paulsen’s team has really only raised $298,000. […]

In total, the 2008 leadership team for the House Republicans raised $785,000. That means that, at this point in the 2008 election cycle, Rants’ leadership team had raised 56% of the total funds they would raise that year. If Paulsen’s crew raises only what was raised in 2008, then they are only 46% of the way there if you include Schulte’s and Deyoe’s contributions, and they are a disappointing 38% of the way there if [Schulte] and Deyoe are excluded because they have their own races to worry about.

If House Republicans want to wrestle control away from the Democrats, they need to get serious about fundraising. Legislative campaigns are expensive. The average cost of a rural House seat is $200,000, while an urban house seat can easily cost $400,000 or more. […]

Robinson also posted a table comparing Iowa House Republican leaders’ fundraising from 2008 and the current election cycle, which you can find after the jump. House district 37 (map here) is one of Iowa Democrats’ best pickup opportunities. It contains a large part of northern Cedar Rapids, ending where the suburbs Hiawatha and Marion begin. Schulte defeated first-term State Representative Art Staed by just 13 votes in 2008. Even after recent Republican gains in voter registration, registered Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans in district 37 (no-party voters have a plurality). Robinson is right: Schulte won’t be able to afford to share her campaign funds with other House Republicans, because her Democratic opponent Mark Seidl is pounding the pavement.

Deyoe’s House district 10 (map) covers most of Story County outside Ames as well as the eastern part of Hamilton County. Compared to House district 37, this is slightly more favorable terrain for the GOP, as registered Republicans outnumber Democrats. But as in many Iowa legislative districts, no-party voters comprise the largest group of registrants. Moreover, Deyoe has a more experienced opponent in Selden Spencer, who was the 2006 Democratic nominee against Tom Latham in the fourth Congressional district. Both Spencer and Deyoe have just under $26,000 cash on hand, according to the July 19 disclosure reports.

I hadn’t realized before reading Robinson’s post that Iowa House GOP leaders were not keeping up with the party’s fundraising pace in 2008, but that’s not surprising. Ask any professional working in the development field: the recent recession and stock market declines make it more challenging to raise money now than in 2008. In addition, Republican statehouse leaders had much less competition for donors two years ago. The statewide offices weren’t on the ballot, and John McCain had a small donor pool here, having mostly bypassed the Iowa caucuses. Now Terry Branstad and to a lesser extent Brenna Findley are raising big money from the same people Paulsen needs to tap for the House races.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. If you can afford to do so, please donate to one or more Democrats running for Iowa House. You can give online through ActBlue or the candidates’ official websites.

The floor is open for anything on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers. Anyone out there finish RAGBRAI?

Obscure rock music’s been on my mind and my iPod lately. I recently bought the 1972 Genesis album Foxtrot on iTunes and have been enjoying this “prog rock” masterpiece after not hearing it for nearly a decade. Some Todd Rundgren classics from his prog/pop band Utopia are also in rotation. If you only know “Love is the Answer” through covers by Rick Springfield or England Dan and John Ford Coley, do yourself a favor and go download the original version by Utopia. Bonus tip for parents of young children: that song became one of my older son’s favorite lullabies. I would sing just the refrain over and over again (“Light of the world, shine on me, love is the answer/Shine on us all, set us free, love is the answer”). When he was old enough to talk, he’d sometimes request the song he called “shine on me.”

The post-punk British band New Model Army isn’t so child-friendly, but is fun to listen to when I’m walking my dog (about my only alone time). An English friend introduced me to this band in the 1990s, and I’ve been able to catch up with their recent material on iTunes. If you’ve never heard them, start with their “History” collection. Other worthwhile albums include “Thunder and Consolation,” “The Love of Hopeless Causes” and “High.” My favorite New Model Army album, “Impurity,” is mysteriously absent from iTunes, but you can probably find a used copy on eBay.

Share your own opinions or musical recommendations here.

How low will Terry Branstad go in his efforts to score political points on the immigration issue? Before the primary election, he exaggerated how much undocumented immigrants cost the state budget and said he wouldn’t offer their children in-state college tuition. Earlier this month, he called for new enforcement that would copy Arizona’s “show your papers” approach but (magic pony style) wouldn’t leave Iowa taxpayers footing the bill for immigrants jailed.

Now Branstad is grandstanding against the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows children of undocumented immigrants to attend public schools. Speaking on Jan Mickelson’s conservative talk radio show on July 27, the Republican nominee for governor said, “I believe that we need to see that [ruling] overturned.”

Branstad is taking a fairly extreme position here. The Plyler v. Doe decision, which struck down a Texas statute denying public education to children of undocumented immigrants, has been settled law for nearly 30 years. (Not that I’d put it past the current activist right-wing Supreme Court majority to overturn longstanding precedent.)

I haven’t seen any Branstad campaign press release declaring that he wants to take public education away from illegal immigrants, so maybe he was cynically throwing a bone to Mickelson’s listening audience. Governor Chet Culver’s campaign manager Donn Stanley pointed out that during the 16 years Branstad was governor after Plyler v Doe took effect, “He never had the state Department of Education oppose that ruling.”

But what an indictment of Branstad’s “family values” if he was speaking sincerely on Mickelson’s show. He would tell children no, we’re not going to educate you, because your parents did something bad. Stanley told the Des Moines Register, “It also just seems that having these kids in school instead of on the street would be better for society […] Speaking generally, punishing children for what their parents do illegally is not a value the governor has.”

Branstad should answer two follow-up questions. First, if elected governor, would he try to pass a law denying education benefits to children of undocumented immigrants? Such a law would be challenged in court, perhaps creating an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

Second, would Branstad take any other steps to restrict education opportunities for immigrant children? Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley recently told Mickelson that while Plyler v Doe applies to Iowa, she favored trying to “work with the Department of Education” to find ways our state could address this issue. Branstad talks up Findley everywhere he campaigns; would he work with her toward this end? Incidentally, even Findley didn’t go so far as to say that Plyler v Doe was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention this part of the Des Moines Register article:

“Gov. Branstad believes that people who are here illegally should not receive taxpayer-funded benefits because it drains our budget and is an added expense to taxpayers,” Branstad campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht said. “We’re talking about those children here illegally. We’re not talking about those born here.”

I haven’t seen any statistics on the estimated number of children in Iowa who were brought to this country illegally, as opposed to native-born Iowa children of undocumented immigrants. Even if Branstad got his wish and the Supreme Court revised its thinking on this issue, it would be difficult to implement the kind of distinction Albrecht is talking about. Theoretically, you could have school district denying enrollment to older siblings while educating younger siblings who were born in Iowa.  

The Iowa Department of Management released a report on the I-JOBS state bonding initiative yesterday. Click here for the pdf file (more than 100 pages). Governor Chet Culver’s office highlighted how much I-JOBS has invested in infrastructure, particularly in the areas of flood recovery and mitigation, as well as how many jobs have been created or retained. Iowa Republicans continue to claim I-JOBS failed, having funded only temporary jobs at a high cost.

The Department of Management’s report documents about 1,700 projects that could not have gone forward without I-JOBS money. Unfortunately, recent media coverage of I-JOBS hasn’t focused on its clear benefits. The dominant media frame has become a he-said, she-said take on whether I-JOBS has lived up to Culver’s job creation promises last year.

Dave Funk officially announced his candidacy for Polk County supervisor this week and rolled out a new campaign website, PolkNeedsFunk.com. Not quite the same ring as “Congress Needs Funk,” but still a good slogan. He’s a strong recruit, having carried several precincts in the third supervisor’s district in last month’s GOP primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. (Click here for maps of the district and the Congressional primary results in Polk County.)

Funk promised supporters that this is a “winnable” race, which could give Republicans control of Polk County government for the first time in 62 years. As an energetic campaigner with a built-in supply of volunteers from the local tea party movement, Funk will test two-term incumbent Tom Hockensmith. He starts the campaign with much higher name recognition than Wes Enos, whom Hockensmith defeated in 2006 by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent.

However, Funk faces an uphill battle. Even after recent Republican gains in voter registration statewide, Democrats still have a large registration advantage in Polk County’s third supervisor’s district. Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald provided the latest figures for active registered voters in the area Hockensmith represents: 22,301 Democrats, 15,753 Republicans, 15,569 no-party voters, and 52 others. Polk County Democrats have a strong GOTV operation, and organized labor will work hard for Hockensmith for reasons I described here.

Funk’s tea party rhetoric may not resonate in this campaign as well as it did with Republican primary voters last month. The issues page of Polk Needs Funk talks about limiting spending so that county government can “live within its means,” but people want their supervisors to deliver public services like the ones Hockensmith will talk about during the campaign.

Anyway, Polk County’s fiscal position is strong. Many residents questioned the money spent to expand the Iowa Events Center earlier this decade, but that facility just turned its largest-ever profit despite the tough economy. You can download recent county budgets and reports from bond rating agencies here. The last time Polk County issued general obligation bonds in 2007, all three major ratings agencies gave the county strong credit ratings. Fitch said its AA+ rating “reflects the county’s broad and diverse economic base, sound financial operations, and low direct debt burden.” Moody’s said Polk’s “high quality Aa1 rating reflects the county’s healthy and economically viable tax base realizing strong growth trends; stable financial operations supported by satisfactory reserve levels; and a manageable debt burden with future debt planned.” Standard & Poor’s raised Polk’s rating from AA+ to AAA, citing factors such as “low debt burden” and “stable financial position supported by a policy to pass balanced budgets.”

Funk will struggle to convince voters that “Polk County is among the most hostile business environments in Iowa.” Talk about “getting government out of the way and fostering a fair, business-friendly environment” appeals to Funk’s base but has little basis in reality. The business magazine Forbes just named the Des Moines metro area one of the top ten “recovery capitals” in the U.S., based on Moody’s Economy.com analysis of economic prospects for the period 2010-14. The Brookings Institute ranked the Des Moines area near the top in its June 2010 report on recession and economic recovery in the country’s 100 largest metro areas. In April, Des Moines topped the Forbes list of “best places for business and careers.” Many factors contribute to the Des Moines area’s relative economic health, and most of them have little to do with county governance. But if Polk County supervisors really were creating the “hostile” business environment of Funk’s imagination, Des Moines shouldn’t be doing so well compared to other U.S. cities.

Share any thoughts about county government or the Funk/Hockensmith race in this thread.

As of yesterday, 44 of Iowa’s 99 counties are under disaster proclamations because of flooding in June or July. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee noted today that Republican Brad Zaun, the GOP nominee against Representative Leonard Boswell, has a record of opposing government assistance for flood victims. At an IowaPolitics.com forum in March of this year, Zaun suggested that Americans have forgotten about “personal responsibility” and gave this example: “We lost that as a country, we expect when there’s a flood or something that’s going on, the government to come in and help us.” Like all other Republicans in the Iowa House and Senate, Zaun voted against the bills that created the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program in 2009. I-JOBS included $100 million to rebuild the University of Iowa campus, $46.5 million to rebuild sites in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Palo, Elkader and Charles City, plus $118.5 million in “competitive grants available for reconstruction of local public buildings and flood control prevention.”

Zaun told the Des Moines Register that the DCCC took his remarks out of context, adding, “Obviously the people who are affected by the [Lake Delhi] dam break, I would obviously expect the government to play a role in that… there’s certainly is a role for government when there’s big disasters like this.”

What would that role be, Mr. Zaun? You voted against recovery funding after the biggest flood disaster in this state’s history. The Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth observes, “Republicans have previously said their opposition [to I-JOBS] was primarily due to their concern about long-term debt and not a sign of opposition against flood mitigation or recovery.” Fine. Let Zaun spell out how he would have paid to rebuild the University of Iowa and Linn County landmarks, let alone finance flood mitigation efforts elsewhere, without state borrowing. We didn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars lying around in 2008 and 2009, because the worst recession in 60 years brought state revenues down.

Zaun wants to have it both ways: he brags about opposing I-JOBS but doesn’t want voters to think he’s against government aid when there’s a “big disaster.”

Speaking of incoherent campaign rhetoric, Zaun’s comment about flood relief at the March forum was part of his answer to a question about new financial regulations. After lamenting the lack of “personal responsibility” in this country, Zaun concluded, “there needs to be some changes with our banking system, but its not with more government red tape and I would not support that current bill [under consideration in Congress] that you’re talking about.” I would love to hear details about the banking system changes Zaun would support.

Getting back to flood recovery, I still wonder what Representative Steve King has against the federal flood insurance program. Unfortunately, property owners around Lake Delhi are unlikely to benefit from that program, because Delaware County had declined to participate.

UPDATE: Boswell’s campaign released this statement on July 27:

“It is unfortunate that Senator Zaun made such insensitive and out-of-touch comments, especially as Iowans are experiencing widespread flooding across the state for the second time in two years. He has a long record of repeatedly voting against helping Iowa’s families, small businesses, and farmers in the aftermath of the 2008 floods. Iowans pay taxes into their local, state, and federal governments with the expectation that when a disaster strikes their investment will pay off. They trust that they will have a place to go, someone to counsel them, and a way to rebuild their homes and businesses. After all, this is their tax dollars – their government. I know that my conscience would never allow me to stand idle as these families, small business owners, farmers, and communities suffer following a natural disaster. This November Iowans will have to choose whether they want to elect a representative that will stand by them in times of need and fight for their fair share of their tax dollars, or someone who turns his back on his constituents.”