After watching this weekend’s “Iowa Press” program on Iowa Public Television, I’m not surprised Senator Chuck Grassley has been ducking debates with Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin. You can view the 30-minute program or read the full transcript here. Conlin had Grassley on the defensive several times during the program, not only for refusing to debate her, but also for helping to create the federal deficit he now rails against:

This whole idea of tax cuts for the wealthy being the key to economic vibrancy is just plain wrong, we tried that, that’s what got us where we are.  We’ve got to solve the deficit problem that Senator Grassley, Senator Grassley as chair of the finance committee created a lot of the problem with the deficit, two tax cuts for the very wealthy. […]

Two tax cuts mostly benefiting the very wealthy passed by Senator Grassley, chair of the committee, not a dime paid for.  Two wars fought on the credit card.  Medicare Part D which includes that crazy provision that we can’t negotiate prices with the drug companies.  Those were under Senator Grassley’s finance committee and resulted in $1.3 trillion dollars a year of deficit.

Conlin also pointed out that Grassley used to support the individual health insurance mandate he now claims is unconstitutional. When he accused her of supporting amnesty for undocumented immigrants, she pointed out, “There’s only one person in this room who has voted for amnesty and that is Senator Grassley, not just once but twice.  In 1982 he introduced a bill for amnesty.”

Grassley tried to link Conlin to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He also claimed she supports regulations and tax increases that would kill jobs. As for his refusal to debate Conlin, he said he frequently takes questions on the issues from Iowa reporters and from members of the public.

I mostly agree with Kathie Obradovich, who wrote, “Conlin scored the deepest cuts on Grassley and got only scratches in return.”

Grassley’s most successful gambits against Conlin were on job creation. He accused her of supporting what he called job-destroying legislation such as cap and trade, ending the Bush tax cuts for people over $250,000 in income and shutting down offshore oil drilling.

But he lost his momentum when Conlin countered that Grassley, as Finance Committee chairman, contributed to the deficit by supporting the Bush tax cuts without an offsetting spending cut and spending for two wars. He scoffed that she must not know that the Finance Committee doesn’t appropriate money.

“Aren’t you a senator?” Conlin shot back. “Didn’t you vote?”

An unclear question led to an odd statement from Grassley. Asked whether President George. W. Bush was wrong on Iraq, Conlin said he was wrong to start the war. Grassley, however, responded: “I think the fact the president (Obama) declared victory two weeks ago and brought the troops home is evidence that it was not wrong.” It left me wondering how the war’s end could justify the beginning.

The 30-minute limit wasn’t kind to Grassley. It takes him longer than Conlin to make his points and he seemed to get frustrated when a reporter tried to cut him off. He came off as angry, while Conlin looked composed. Iowa Public Television offered to make the show an hour long, but Grassley declined. That was a mistake.

Grassley didn’t look at Conlin during the television program, nor did he mention her name. After the taping, Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson asked him about that:

I was one of the reporters in the studio for the taping of today’s “Iowa Press” show, and during the news conference with Grassley I asked:  “Senator, I know Dean, Mike and I are very compelling figures, but you never once looked at Roxanne Conlin during the entirety of the show.  What were you signalling with that body language?”

“Nothing,” Grassley said in reply.

Lynn Campbell of IowaPolitics.com then asked another question.  “Senator, how confident are you about your reelection this November and how would you describe the challenge from Ms. Conlin versus the other five elections you’ve faced?”

Grassley said this to Campbell:  “I’ll have you repeat the question.”

Then Grassley directed his comments back to me:  “I wish you had told me because I would have been very happy to look at her.  She’s a very nice looking woman.  She’s very intelligent.  I have nothing against looking at her, but I thought I ought to concentrate on the people who were asking the questions because from your body language I learned a lot.”

The assembly of reporters laughed.

Grassley makes some really odd comments sometimes.

In other news this weekend, the “big game” between Iowa and Iowa State turned into a blowout. Congratulations to Hawkeyes and condolences to Cyclones in the Bleeding Heartland community.

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

Two-term incumbent Dave Loebsack launched the first television commercial of this year’s campaign on Thursday. The 30-second spot is playing district-wide (Cedar Rapids, Quad Cities, Ottumwa-Kirksville, and Quincy, Illinois) on broadcast and cable networks. The campaign hasn’t specified the size of the buy.

For now I can’t embed the video here; you’ll have to watch at his campaign website. LATE UPDATE: Video up on YouTube:

Here is my rough transcript:

Loebsack: I’m Dave Loebsack, and I approved this message.

Male voice-over: Raised in poverty by a single mother, Dave Loebsack knows first-hand the struggle just to get by. Starting at 16, Loebsack pulled himself up, worked at a sewage treatment plant, then through college as a janitor. It’s why Loebsack is fighting to help small business create jobs and hold Wall Street accountable for recklessness and greed. Because Dave Loebsack will always stand up for what’s right.

This ad doesn’t break any new ground visually or in terms of content. The biographical piece emphasizing the candidate’s humble beginnings and connection to ordinary people has become a staple of campaigns for all offices. The only unusual thing I noticed is the man with a pony tail talking to Loebsack near the end of the commercial. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that in an Iowa political ad before. But it’s hardly a radical fashion statement in a district with the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids corridor as its population center.

Loebsack’s campaign hasn’t released any internal polling on his rematch against Mariannette Miller-Meeks, but I assume it’s not too terrible if he’s beginning with a positive ad. Many Democratic incumbents around the country are already running negative spots about the Republican challenger. Representative Leonard Boswell’s opening radio advertisement contrasted his record on biofuels with statements by Republican Brad Zaun.

Among Iowa’s five Congressional districts, IA-02 has the strongest Democratic lean (partisan voting index of D+7). In other words, Loebsack’s district voted about 7 points more Democratic than the national average in the last two presidential elections. The Iowa City ballot measure regarding the ban on under-21s in bars will probably drive student turnout higher than in an ordinary midterm election, which has to be good for Loebsack.

The high unemployment rate in several of the 15 counties in the district works against the incumbent, however. Also, Mariannette Miller-Meeks has relatively high name recognition as a repeat challenger. It remains to be seen whether conservative Republicans will get behind Miller-Meeks. In October 2008, Iowa Right to Life unfairly accused her of being a “pretender” on the abortion issue. During her September 7 interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board, Miller-Meeks said she might support a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants, after our international border has been secured and if the American people favor that policy. That reasonable stance will be anathema to segments of the Iowa Republican base.

Both Loebsack and Miller-Meeks held campaign events today before the big Iowa/Iowa State football game in Iowa City.

UPDATE: Thanks to corncam for flagging this disappointing article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette:

“Where rubber hits the road – because it’s connected to the deficit issue, the debt issue – is what we do about those making over $200,000 and couples making $250,000?” he said. “I’ve said all along that I didn’t want to extend those [Bush] tax cuts, but I’m rethinking that at the moment.”

Extending the tax cuts for those top-earners would cost the federal treasury $700 billion over 10 years, but Loebsack is having second thoughts because of the impact ending the tax cuts for the wealthy might have on the economy.

“We have a weak recovery that needs to continue,” Loebsack said. “Those folks at those top levels consume a pretty fair amount of what is consumed in this country and this is a demand-driven economy.

No, the folks at the top tend not to spend most of what they get back in tax cuts. In contrast, people who are struggling will spend all their extra money immediately. If Congress wants to “support the recovery” to the tune of $70 billion a year, they should extend unemployment benefits for the “99-ers” (those who have exhausted all 99 weeks of payments). Unemployment benefits are among the most stimulative forms of government spending.

The conservative 501(c)4 organization American Future Fund commissioned polls last week in Iowa’s first, second and third Congressional districts. Yesterday the group released partial results from the surveys, touting the supposedly low re-elect numbers for Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03).

The topline results showed Democratic incumbents leading their challengers in all three races, even among the “certain to vote” sub-sample.

Terry Branstad launched a new campaign ad on Tuesday. Like his previous commercials, the “Big Bad Debt” spot strings together a bunch of numbers (some of them wrong) to create the false impression that Iowa’s in bad fiscal shape.

The commercial invites a lot of tough questions journalists could be asking the Branstad campaign, such as:

Why do you keep claiming Iowa has a $1 billion budget deficit when the state budget is balanced?

Why do you keep citing months-old warnings about Iowa’s “budget cliff” when the latest revenue collections were stronger than projected, and the ending balance for fiscal year 2010 will be much larger than expected?

Why are you still using inflated estimates for the I-JOBS repayment costs, when you know the bonds were sold at lower interest rates more than a year ago?

You keep attacking $2.5 billion in “overspending,” alluding to federal stimulus money and funding from the state reserves. How would you balance the state budget without accepting any federal stimulus money or using state reserve funds?

Why are you making the I-JOBS borrowing the centerpiece of your case against Culver when Branstad also borrowed to fund infrastructure projects when he was governor, and sometimes had to borrow money to address the state’s cash-flow problems?

Why are you bragging about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s upcoming Iowa visit when Christie presided over more state borrowing in his first year than Culver has in his whole term?

The ad is after the jump, along with the kind of scrutiny Iowa’s media should be providing.

Senator Chuck Grassley launched two new campaign advertisements on Tuesday, his first television commercials since a 30-second spot that aired shortly before the June primary. Like that first ad, both new commercials say nothing about conservative policy stands or opposing President Obama’s agenda. They don’t even mention his party affiliation. Instead, they depict the senator as a hard worker who has stayed connected to Iowa and works for all of his constituents.

Videos and more analysis are after the jump.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks considered withdrawing from her rematch against Representative Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second Congressional district this summer, the Republican candidate told the Des Moines Register’s editorial board yesterday. Miller-Meeks stepped down from her ophthalmology practice in early 2009 to focus on running for Congress again, so when her husband lost his job this July, her family had no income.

Miller-Meeks said she told no one about her dilemma, not even Republican Party officials. […]

The family financial crisis influenced her political perspectives, she said. It sharpened her beliefs that the government should stay out of debt and that steps must be taken to make health insurance more affordable.

Since stepping down from her medical practice, Miller-Meeks had had health insurance coverage through her husband’s job. He has a new job now, but Miller-Meeks told the Register’s staff that she has chosen not to be on his insurance plan.

“I’m a very healthy person, and what I’ve done is look at my family history and determine what my level of risk is,” she said. “Am I saying it’s a smart thing to do? No. I think we need to make health insurance more affordable.”

The country needs to get to a point where a family of four can pay $2,000 a year for a plan that covers immunizations, preventative medicine and catastrophic needs, Miller-Meeks said. She also supports a nationwide risk pool and allowing health insurance purchasing across state lines, she said.

If elected, she would like to choose a federal plan that covers only catastrophic illness or injury, she said.

It must have been a very stressful summer for the Miller-Meeks family. While I’m sorry to hear about her situation, I wouldn’t recommend going without health insurance based on a good medical history. A flukey infection can incur tens of thousands of dollars in health care costs, to say nothing of a cancer diagnosis or some chronic illness. I also wouldn’t advise a friend to choose a limited catastrophic plan like the one Miller-Meeks prefers for herself and many others. There’s a reason such policies are commonly known as “junk insurance.” Letting people buy insurance across state lines sounds good in theory, until you consider how the race to the bottom gutted regulations for credit card issuers.

Miller-Meeks is a hard worker and clearly committed to seeing this race through, but some Republicans may be upset to learn that she was on the verge of quitting for the second election in a row. A wingnut faction in the Iowa GOP already distrusts Miller-Meeks for allegedly being too moderate.

Miller-Meeks has been campaigning energetically around the second district with a generic Republican message. She calls Loebsack names like “Do-nothing Dave” and Pelosi’s puppet, rails against the health insurance reform law and the 2009 federal stimulus:

Stimulus funding has failed to create jobs, and it probably would have worked better to funnel money directly to the American people, she said.

The stimulus bill created and saved millions of jobs according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Without it the economy would have continued to decline steeply. Evidence is mounting that the stimulus wasn’t big enough, the opposite of Miller-Meeks’ claim. Tax cuts made up about one-third of the stimulus bill’s costs, even though government spending provides more “bang for the buck” than tax cuts do. The stimulus provisions with the biggest “bang for the buck” did give money directly to Americans in the form of extended unemployment benefits and food stamps. Other stimulus spending that kept teachers and public safety workers on the job helped ordinary Americans as well.

Few analysts expect the IA-02 race to be competitive this year, because the district has a strong Democratic lean, and Loebsack defeated Miller-Meeks by 57 percent to 39 percent in 2008. (A Green Party candidate who isn’t running this year picked up 3 percent last cycle.) Loebsack also has a large cash on hand advantage over his challenger. Then again, the overall political environment favors Republicans, and pockets of the second district have high unemployment.

I do agree with Miller-Meeks on one point: Loebsack should debate her. Barbara Grassley advised Miller-Meeks to schedule a debate and show up to face an empty chair if necessary (funny advice in light of Senator Chuck Grassley’s refusal to debate Roxanne Conlin). But I hope it doesn’t come to such theatrics. Miller-Meeks deserves a chance to debate the incumbent, just as fifth district candidate Matt Campbell deserves a debate against incumbent Steve “10 Worst” King.

Any comments about the IA-02 campaign are welcome in this thread.

CORRECTION: I didn’t realize that the candidates had agreed to three debates already: an AARP forum in Coralville on September 13, a joint Iowa Public Television appearance on September 24 and a debate hosted by KCRG in Cedar Rapids on October 12.

UPDATE: Miller-Meeks thinks staggered enrollment in Medicare is the way to make the program solvent. But people approaching retirement age are among those most likely to have pre-existing conditions and have sky-high private insurance costs. How is that going to work?

SEPTEMBER 24 UPDATE: Miller-Meeks said on Iowa Public TV’s Iowa Press program that she has catastrophic health insurance coverage.

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor urged a large crowd in Des Moines today to safeguard judicial independence in Iowa:

“We have to address the pressures that are being applied to that one safe place, the courtroom,” O’Connor said. “We have to have a place where judges are not subject to outright retaliation for their judicial decisions. That’s the concept. Sure they can be ousted and that’s part of the system, but what the framers of our federal constitution tried to do was establish a system of judicial selection where the judges would not be subject to retaliation by the other branches for their judicial actions.”

O’Connor is in Iowa at the invitation of the Iowa State Bar Association, which was key in forming the group Iowans for Fair and Impartial Courts. The group’s efforts come as another group, Iowa for Freedom led by former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, is working to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision in Varnum v. Brien legalizing same-sex marriages. […]

O’Connor said today there are threats to the court system by about 20 states that still have openly partisan elections to select judges with vast amounts of campaign contributions coming into the courtrooms. She said it’s eroding the faith in the court system. She urged Iowa to stay the course. “Iowa is probably going through a stressful time now,” she said. “Just don’t throw out the system because at times it’s under stress. And I know you won’t do that.”

O’Connor has experience with partisan politics as well as judicial elections. She was a Republican leader in the Arizona State Senate before being elected as an Arizona judge. Then Governor Bruce Babbitt appointed her to the state’s court of appeals before President Ronald Reagan nominated her for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Republican Party of Iowa isn’t taking a leading role in ousting the three Supreme Court judges who are up for retention this November. They’ve left that battle to interest groups on the religious right, which plan to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. Behind the scenes, the Republican Governors Association is also reportedly funding Vander Plaats’ new vehicle, Iowans for Freedom.

Many Republican attorneys and business owners oppose the campaign to punish judges for making an unpopular decision. But to my knowledge, not a single Iowa Republican office-holder or candidate has spoken out for retaining the Supreme Court judges and preserving our current judicial nominating system. I’ve seen many Republican candidates call for ousting the judges and returning to judicial elections. Gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad is nominally staying neutral, declaring the retention vote “an issue on which people need to decide for themselves” and “vote their conscience.”

What a shame that the Iowa Republican tent isn’t large enough to accommodate politicians who respect our judicial system enough to openly defend its independence.  

1000 Friends of Iowa is taking nominations through September 28 for the organization’s Best Development Awards. Projects anywhere in Iowa can be nominated in one of six categories: new residential, renovated residential, renovated commercial/civic, new commercial/civic, mixed use, and leadership. Click here for details on how to submit a nomination. I posted the selection criteria after the jump.

I’m active with 1000 Friends of Iowa, and while I’m not involved in choosing the award winners, every year I’m inspired to see the amazing development work being done around this state.

Click here for photos and information about the 2009 Best Development Award winners: the Marshalltown Public Library (new commercial/civic), Court Avenue Lofts in Des Moines (new residential), Durrant Building in Dubuque (renovated commercial/civic), Westfield Avenue Lofts in Waterloo (renovated residential), Plaza Towers in Iowa City (mixed use), and the Historic Millwork District Master Plan in Dubuque (leadership).

Projects in Davenport, Dubuque, Sioux City, Marion, West Des Moines and Iowa City won Best Development Awards in 2008. The ISU Design West building in Sioux City was one of my all-time favorite nominees.

Projects in Dubuque, Elkader, Davenport, Lake Park (near Spirit Lake) and the City of Okoboji won Best Development Awards in 2007. Projects in Conrad, Central City, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo and Des Moines won Best Development Awards in 2006. The 2005 award-winners were Iowa City’s Peninsula neighborhood, the Van Allen building in Clinton, the America’s River Project in Dubuque and the Strand Theater in Grinnell.

The number of award-winning projects in Dubuque is a testament to how hard city and business leaders have been working on redevelopment and sustainability in recent years. Many other Iowa towns and cities could learn from their example.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Rehabber’s Club is taking nominations for its 3rd Annual Most Endangered Buildings list through October 8. Click the link for details on that competition.

Republican Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey will debate his Democratic challenger Francis Thicke on September 11, the Thicke campaign announced today. The Spencer Daily Reporter is sponsoring the debate, which will take place from 11 am to 12:30 pm at the Clay County Fairgrounds, during this weekend’s county fair. The Thicke campaign’s press release states that the Spencer public access cable channel will broadcast the debate, but I hope Iowa Public Television and other media organizations will bring the exchange to a wider audience. Thicke argues,

Iowa voters deserve a full discussion of the issues that are important in this campaign – protecting water and air quality; local food production; local control over – and reducing the impacts of – concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); more diversity on the landscape, including more use of cover and perennial crops; and truly sustainable, renewable, farmer-owned energy systems for agriculture.

Thicke is seeking five debates with Northey, one in each of Iowa’s Congressional districts, but details about other possible meetings have not been finalized. The candidates clashed last week over the Iowa secretary of agriculture’s responsibility to inspect feed mills like the one where a recent salmonella outbreak seems to have originated.

Northey has won the endorsement of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, while Thicke has the Iowa Farmers Union’s endorsement. Last month Thicke published the questionnaire he completed for the Farm Bureau Federation and called on Northey to do the same, so that “so that Iowa voters can determine for themselves where each candidate stands on critical farm issues.”

In related news, today the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club sent an open letter to Attorney General Tom Miller requesting a “thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the egg recall for shell eggs produced by Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms Inc for violations of state law. This investigation should also include Quality Egg LLC Feed Mill, the supplier of the feed to both egg producers.” I’ve posted the full text of the letter after the jump. It includes a detailed list of facts supporting the Sierra Club’s view that the egg producers showed “reckless disregard for the health and well-being of the public.” To prevent similar violations in the future, the Sierra Club is also asking the Attorney General’s Office to consider possible “internal policy changes, legislative needs, and administrative rule changes.”

Miller recently returned a $10,000 campaign donation that Peter DeCoster made in 2005. DeCoster’s father owns the company at the center of the egg recall.

State Senator Rob Hogg of Cedar Rapids toured Iowa last week to discuss former Governor Terry Branstad’s record of inaction on flood prevention. This press release from September 3 highlights five key recommendations from 1994 Iowa Flood Disaster Report prepared by Brig. Gen. Harold Thompson of the Iowa National Guard (click here for a pdf file of the report) .

1. “Reducing vulnerability to future floods is as important as improving disaster relief capabilities and programs.” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

2. Communities need “adequate state assistance in mitigating future flood damage” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

3. Better flood technology and information including “electronic river monitoring,” “detailed river basin modeling,” and “extensive mapping” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

4. Incorporate “watershed management” including “wetland restoration” and “unchannelized streams” which can “play a large role in reducing flood damage downstream” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

5. “The State of Iowa should review the floodplain management responsibility [and] create a viable, effective program with adequate resources” – Worse than no action, the report says that Terry Branstad allowed the state’s program to “erode” and then took no action to restore the program

For a guy whose central campaign message is, “We did it before, and we can do it again,” Branstad has remarkably little to say in defense of his record. In fact, he didn’t respond directly to Hogg’s comments last week. Instead, his campaign manager attacked the messenger and tried to change the subject.  

How are you spending the holiday, Bleeding Heartlanders? I’m off to see the Iowa Cubs’ last game of the regular season. If they win, they’ll make the playoffs.

If you attended any labor celebrations this weekend, you may have encountered some Democrats running for office. U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin attended the Clinton County Labor Day picnic yesterday and was grand marshall of the South Central Iowa Federation of Labor Parade in Des Moines today. Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge is at the Dubuque Labor Day parade today. Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa Democratic Party chair Sue Dvorsky and others will be at the Iowa City Federation of Labor picnic. Governor Chet Culver walked the labor parade in Des Moines today; later he’s is scheduled to attend the Hawkeye Federation of Labor picnic in Cedar Rapids. Culver’s relationship with organized labor has been strained in recent years, but he is clearly a better choice for working people than Terry Branstad. Culver’s campaign released this statement on September 4:

CULVER HONORS LABOR AND DIVERSITY; BRANSTAD’S POLICIES ATTACK LABOR AND LATINOS

Des Moines – Governor Culver is participating in Labor Day activities all across the state of Iowa this weekend including festivities with hard-working Iowans in Ottumwa, Cedar Rapids and Burlington.  Governor Culver has been on the side of working families from day one of his administration.  The first bill he signed raised the minimum wage in Iowa.  He favors labors reforms that give workers their Choice of Doctor, Prevailing Wage, Expanded Scope of Collective Bargaining and Fair Share.

By contrast, Terry Branstad has vowed all labor reform is dead if he becomes Governor.  As Governor, Branstad had to be ordered by the Iowa Supreme Court to honor a legally binding contract between him and the state’s largest state labor union.  He has also opposed working families by his plan to cut health insurance for children, cut state funding for preschool, eliminate job creating entities such as the the Department of Economic Development, the Iowa Jobs and Infrastructure Initiative, and the Iowa Power Fund.

Governor Culver is also attending the Latino Festival today in Des Moines.  This year, Governor Culver signed legislation combating wage discrimination and a bill requiring new legislation to be reviewed for its impact on minority incarceration. Governor Culver is also a strong supporter of civil rights, women’s rights and worker’s rights.

By contrast, Terry Branstad now opposes a United States Supreme Court decision stating that all children in the U.S. are entitled to a basic public education regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.  Branstad says this decision should be challenged even though it has been the law of the land since before he was governor and he failed to challenge or even speak out against the ruling during his entire 16 years in the governor’s office.  Even more extreme, Branstad wants Iowa to go further than the Arizona law currently being challenged in federal court by requiring that everyone carry their birth certificate with them when traveling.  His plan would not only be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy but it would also cost local counties a fortune in increased law enforcement and jail costs.

The choice for the future is clear:  Governor Culver wants to help working families and encourage economic and population growth by making Iowa a more tolerant and welcoming place.  Conversely, Branstad wants to return to his extreme policies of the 1980s by making it tougher on working families.  He also wants to implement some of the most extreme policies in the nation by going further than the Arizona law regarding the immigration issue.

President Barack Obama is in Milwaukee today to announce “a comprehensive infrastructure plan to expand and renew our nation’s roads, railways and runways.” Trouble is, to create a significant number of new jobs we need to spend much more than the $50 billion the president is now proposing.

Farmers and farm workers who are regularly exposed to pesticides, take note: a new study conducted in Iowa and North Carolina showed that “women who are married to farmers who were licensed to apply pesticides” had a higher incidence of thyroid disease.

The percentage of private-sector American workers who belong to labor unions has fallen to about 7 percent. That’s unfortunate, because not only are union jobs more frequently higher-wage jobs, non-union employees are more likely to have health benefits if some of their colleagues belong to a union. I saw this summer that the Service Employees International Union is trying to organize Sodexo, the giant food-service company that runs dining-hall operations at many Iowa colleges.

The AFL-CIO ran a Labor Day television ad during some college football games, major-league baseball games, and a NASCAR race over the weekend. The commercial has a mostly non-political message about “America’s workers” being “the backbone of our communities,” “moving our country forward,” “working together for a stronger America.” Expect more hard-hitting ads to come later this fall: AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has promised “an aggressive and massive mobilization of working people this Labor Day weekend and for the fall election.” Democrats up and down the ticket in many states will be praying for a strong labor turnout, because most pollsters see a likely voter universe that tilts more toward Republicans than in 2008.

Finally, I got a laugh out of John Deeth’s observation today:

TheIowaRepublican says: “This Labor Day, Celebrate Iowa’s Right to Work Law.” Isn’t that like honoring deadbeat dads on Father’s Day?

Share any Labor Day thoughts in this thread.

Iowa marked an anniversary on September 1: three years since all accredited schools in the state had to start implementing the Iowa Safe Schools law. I wasn’t able to attend the event celebrating this milestone, but I looked up more information on Senate File 61, “an act relating to the establishment of state and school antiharassment and antibullying policies.” The Iowa legislature passed this law in March 2007, thanks to the leadership of State Representative Roger Wendt and State Senator Mike Connolly. Governor Chet Culver signed it right away, but it didn’t take effect until September 1.

The law defined “harassment” and “bullying” as “any electronic, written, verbal, or physical act or conduct toward a student which is based on any actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student and which creates an objectively hostile school environment […].” The law further defined “trait or characteristic of the student” as any of the following 17 categories: “age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status.”

That’s quite an inclusive list, but you won’t be surprised to learn that when this bill was under consideration, activists on the religious right opposed what they characterized as special rights for the LGBT community. I read through the bill history for Senate File 61 and downloaded the Iowa House and Senate journals for the days the bill was debated on the floor. Republicans offered one weakening amendment after another, most of which were rejected or withdrawn. But in the end, six Iowa Senate Republicans joined all 30 Democrats in the upper chamber to pass the bill. Nine Iowa House Republicans joined 53 Democrats in the lower chamber to pass the bill.

Although their votes weren’t needed to pass Senate File 61, the Republicans who sought to reduce bullying and harassment in Iowa schools should be commended. They went against their caucus leaders on that vote. Many represented suburban districts where tolerance for the LGBT community is more widespread.

Sadly, to my knowledge none of the Republican legislators who voted for this bill in 2007 attended the September 1 celebration, nor did any current Republican elected official or candidate. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.) According to a source who was there, the crowd included First Lady Mari Culver and many other Iowa Democrats, but only one well-known Republican: former Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning. Her pro-equality stance has been known to send Republicans into conniption fits.

State Senator Brad Zaun’s vote for the bullying bill briefly became an issue in this year’s GOP primary in the third Congressional district. Although he offered a couple of weakening amendments and voted for many others during the Iowa Senate floor debate, Zaun ultimately recognized the importance of this bill. Kids should not be bullied in school. Too bad that’s not a politically correct position for the Republican base.

Speaking of schools, the U.S. Department of Education formally approved $96.5 million for Iowa school districts last week. The funding came from the fiscal aid package Congress approved last month. Governor Chet Culver hailed the decision:

“This will allow our schools to recover almost completely from the difficult budget cuts created by the economic downturn. It will mean more teachers staying on the job and fewer students per classroom. I encourage school districts to use these funds immediately to offset previous budget cuts, as that is the intent of the Education Jobs Act.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad opposed the bill that allocated extra federal funds to state education and Medicaid budgets. If he and Congressional Republicans had gotten their way, many Iowa teachers would not have their jobs back. In my children’s school district, elementary school students would have less time for art, music and physical education.

This is an open thread. What’s up with you this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?  

Following up on yesterday’s post, the recall of half a billion Iowa-produced eggs continues to reverberate in Iowa politics.

Republican Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey still denies that he could have done more to ensure food safety regulations were followed at the DeCoster facilities. Northey’s opponent, Francis Thicke, has said feed mill inspections “could have identified a strain of Salmonella Enteritidis before 1,470 Americans were sickened and a half billion eggs were recalled.”

Meanwhile, the non-profit Food Democracy Now announced that two major supermarket chains have agreed to stop selling eggs produced by Jack DeCoster’s operations.

Details and more links are after the jump.

Democratic Secretary of Agriculture candidate Francis Thicke spoke this morning about the recall of half a billion eggs originating from two Iowa companies. I’ve been wondering why our current Secretary of Agriculture, Bill Northey, has kept quiet about the salmonella outbreak that prompted the largest food recall in history. Thicke pointed out that Northey had the authority to license and inspect feed mills like the one that served “habitual violator” Jack DeCoster’s operations, but instead Northey did nothing.

More details on the perspectives of Northey and Thicke are after the jump, along with many other links on the egg recall story.

If you think Northey’s failure to prevent or adequately respond to this disaster is outrageous, wait till you hear the agriculture policy Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad rolled out this week.

I really don't care that Alan Simpson used the word “tits” in his description of Social Security as a “milk cow with 310 million tits.” Yeah, I realize that he was being jerkily provocative. He knew that his rough language would result in a satisfying amount of pearl-clutching, while meanwhile he could hide behind an ersatz farm-boy “well out in the barnyard that's how we pronounce 'teats'” line.

The plain truth is that Sen. Simpson has made a tidy post-Senate career out of being a sort of affable country dumbass. In the mid-1990s, while he was cooling his post-DC jets at a Kennedy School sinecure here in the People's Republic of Cambridge, he even had a local TV show on WGBH with Robert Reich called “The Long and Short of It.” Ha ha, see, because Simpson is very tall while Reich is very short.

Anyway, the long-term (i.e. 75-year) shortfall in SS amounts to 0.7% of GDP. Not exactly a huge item, compared to other recent liabilities taken on by the US Govt, including a couple of wars and two rounds of tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. In fact, it turns out that the long-term cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the plus-$250K crowd is roughly equal to the long term shortfall in SS. So, allow tax rates to return to those ruinous Clinton-era levels for the top 3% or so, devote the resulting dough to SS, and bada-bing, SS “crisis” solved for another 75 YEARS.

Speaking of which… did you know that the US Defense budget is scheduled to “go bankrupt” in about one month? ONE MONTH! Geez, according to current polling I guess it's more likely that E.T. will be dispensing my Ham Squishy at the Quik-E-Mart than the Defense Dept. will be fully funded for FY2011.

The Iowa Corn Growers Assocation’s political action committee announced its support for 66 Iowa candidates today. Unlike the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, which endorsed 64 Republicans and just three Democrats, the Corn Growers’ PAC is supporting 33 candidates from each party.

For the governor’s race, the corn growers took the unusual step of endorsing both Governor Chet Culver and his Republican opponent, Terry Branstad. Nearly all of the other endorsed candidates are incumbents: Republican Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, Senator Chuck Grassley, and all five U.S. House incumbents: Democrats Bruce Braley, Leonard Boswell and Dave Loebsack, and Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King. Boswell’s campaign was quick to hail the endorsement in a press release, with Boswell promising to use his position on the House Agriculture Committee to be a strong voice for farmers and ethanol producers. Boswell’s first campaign advertisement this year focused on Republican challenger Brad Zaun’s pledge to do “nothing” to help Iowa’s biofuels industry.

The Corn Growers’ PAC endorsed 17 candidates for Iowa Senate, 10 Democrats and 7 Republicans. In races expected to be competitive, the corn growers are backing Democrats Rich Olive in district 5, Staci Appel in district 37, both candidates in district 9 (incumbent Democrat Bill Heckroth and Republican Bill Dix), and both candidates in district 45 (incumbent Democrat Becky Schmitz and Republican Sandy Greiner). Dix and Greiner have served in the Iowa legislature before.

All 40 Iowa House candidates endorsed by the corn growers are incumbents. Republicans have a slight edge with 22 endorsed candidates, but many of the 18 Democrats on the list hold seats the GOP is targeting: McKinley Bailey (district 9), John Beard (district 16), Andrew Wenthe (district 18), Bob Kressig (district 19), Ray Zirkelbach (district 31), Donovan Olson (district 48), Eric Palmer (district 75), Nathan Reichert (district 80) and Michael Reasoner (district 95). The Corn Growers’ PAC did not make an endorsement in any of the open-seat Iowa House races.

The Iowa Corn Growers Association press release containing the full list of endorsed candidates is after the jump.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that the Iowa Farmers Union gave Culver its “Friend of the Farmer award last week.  According to the Marshalltown Times-Republican, “Gregg Heide, vice president of the IFU, said Culver’s backing of the Iowa Power Fund, renewable energy and biofuels were the main reasons he was being honored.”

President Barack Obama gave a televised address last night to announce the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq. I didn’t watch the speech, but I read the full transcript and posted it after the jump.

Several commentators have noted that Obama did not declare victory in the speech, but he certainly put a positive spin on our foreign adventures. The gist was that he’s kept his promise to end the war, we’ve accomplished the goals he set when he became president, and ceasing combat in Iraq will allow us to pivot to a more effective fight against terrorism in Afghanistan as well as a more. Obama highlighted the withdrawal of nearly 100,000 troops and the transfer of responsibility to Iraqi authorities. However, our”transitional force in Iraq is about 50,000 troops now, and even at the end of 2011 we could have tens of thousands of troops stationed in the country. Tehcnically, these are “advise and assist” brigades rather than combat brigades, but our soldiers will still be targets, and some will continue to die under hostile fire.

In the least convincing part of his speech, Obama hailed “credible elections” leading to “a caretaker administration” as Iraqis form a government. The lack of a functioning Iraqi government nearly six months after those elections doesn’t evoke optimism about future political stability.

Three years ago, candidate Obama bombarded Iowa Democrats with messages about how he spoke out against the war in Iraq. Last night, he only mentioned his previous opposition to the war in passing, and he didn’t suggest the war was a mistake. His kind words about George W. Bush glossed over the lies that helped lead the country to war as well as the mismanagement that undermined our national security and kept us bogged down in Iraq for so many years.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest; it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home.

We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people, a belief that, out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibilities. Now it’s time to turn the page.

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well-known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.

As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

Obama then pivoted to defending the importance of our mission in Afghanistan. He claimed that drawing down from Iraq will give us “the resources necessary to go on offense” against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He affirmed that troop reductions will begin in the summer of 2011, with the pace “determined by conditions on the ground.” Juan Cole remarked, “Presumably the language about the Afghan struggle against al-Qaeda was intended to please hawks, while the pledge to begin withdrawing next year was for the purpose of reassuring liberals. It is not clear, however, that practical success in Afghanistan can be achieved through this sort of rhetorical compromise.” I still think the escalation of our war in Afghanistan will turn out to be one of Obama’s biggest mistakes. U.S. and coalition military fatalities in Afghanistan have sharply increased since Obama took office. We have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, three times as many as when Obama became president. The drawdown is scheduled to begin in July 2011, but I wouldn’t bet on that date sticking, judging from recent comments by General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Toward the end of last night’s speech, Obama suggested that ending the combat mission in Iraq will allow the U.S. to invest more in our own economy, creating jobs. I’ll believe that when I see it. Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan will cost an exorbitant amount during the next few years. For the last decade, Congress has always been willing to sign blank checks for war, but the deficit hawks pop up to express concern about excessive domestic spending. If Republicans retake one or both chambers of Congress, you can forget about new economic stimulus measures. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is also a non-starter, judging from how the Senate energy bill is shaping up. More broadly, I don’t think Obama acknowledges how precarious our economic situation is now. His August 30 public comments on the economy were narrowly focused on extending small business tax credits, which Senate Republicans have been blocking. It will take a lot more than that to produce job growth again.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The estimated audience for Obama’s address was 29 million viewers.

In 2008, supporters of Democratic Congressional candidate Rob Hubler donned chicken suits outside some of Representative Steve King’s events, to highlight the incumbent’s refusal to debate. At that time, King’s excuse was that the League of Women Voters and Sioux City Journal would not provide “neutral” forums. He cited the Journal’s alleged “attacks” on his character, perhaps referring to a July 2008 report on King’s weak record of legislative achievement.

This summer, Democratic candidate Matt Campbell has challenged King to debates on several occasions. King hasn’t responded. I could have told you (actually, I did tell you) that King wasn’t going to debate Campbell. King likes to speak on conservative talk radio or in other forums where he controls the agenda. He’s not going to stand next to a knowledgeable opponent answering hard questions about substantive issues.

Last week Campbell announced that he had accepted an invitation from KTIV in Sioux City to debate King on October 23. The Campbell campaign press release lists several times King has claimed to welcome debate with Democrats. As usual, King did not respond to Campbell. So the Democrat turned up at King’s town hall meeting in Sioux City yesterday. Bret Hayworth has the story and a video clip at his Politically Speaking blog.

After Campbell pressed King to agree to a debate, the Republican from Kiron, Iowa, replied: “…My answer to that is that judging by the way you have conducted yourself you have not earned it.”

King went on to say that Campbell’s press releases contain too many personal attacks.

“I have said this in the past and everybody in the district that’s paid attention knows this: There needs to be a campaign that’s run that addresses the issues,” King said. […]

King was asked after the meeting if debating a political opponent is indeed a vital part of the American campaign process, as Campbell contends. “I don’t know where that rule would be written. I debate people every day,” King said.

Campbell makes too many “personal attacks”? This coming from a guy whose hyperbole about Democratic leaders is legendary. Yesterday Campbell’s campaign issued another statement on the matter. Excerpt:

Campbell says, “Steve King has never held himself accountable to the voters of Iowa in eight years and needs to fulfill his responsibility to the Democratic process.  Steve King is playing games when in reality he’s the one not respecting the process.  Even a Tea Party member of the audience agreed King should debate me.”

“I cordially introduced myself to Steve King in Storm Lake as King indicates I should have and since then King has ignored letters and phone calls from my office to discuss his participation in a formal debate focused on the issues facing the country,” Campbell says.  “It’s been 8 years, and it’s high time he fulfills his responsibility to voters.”

Iowa Democratic Party chair Sue Dvorsky chimed in with these comments:

“The people of the 5th District deserve an open debate between Steve King and Matt Campbell. They have earned the right to hear from both candidates in a fair and public setting and Steve King is proudly standing in the way of that,” said Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky. “Surely a four-term Congressman like Steve King is capable of debating the issues, the only question is why he feels his constituents don’t deserve the chance to make an informed decision in this election.” […]

“It’s disappointing that Steve King, who never misses an opportunity to comment on an issue, is hiding from a real debate with his opponent. The people of the 5th District deserve better, Matt Campbell will be a strong voice for hard working families across the district” added Dvorsky.

I agree with the sentiment, but King shouldn’t just be chided, he should be ridiculed.

Rent a few chicken suits and follow King around for the next two months to remind voters that their four-term representative is afraid to face his opponent in a debate.

In other news on the IA-05 race, I see Warren Buffett recently donated the maximum allowable amount to Campbell’s campaign. If you can afford to chip in a few bucks, donate here. If you live in the fifth district or within striking distance, you can sign up to volunteer for Campbell here. Learn more about Campbell’s and his political beliefs here.

UPDATE: Democratic Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin said today that Senator Chuck Grassley “should stop being a coward” and agree to one of the many outstanding debate invitations in that race. Grassley agreed to a 30-minute joint appearance on Iowa Public Television’s Iowa Press program, but has not accepted invitations from:

WHO-TV/Des Moines Register

KCRG/Cedar Rapids Gazette

KCCI/IowaPolitics.Com

WHO Radio

Iowa Public Radio

Representative Bruce Braley’s re-election campaign started running its first television commercial of the year Monday evening in the Cedar Rapids and Quad Cities markets. The ad responds to the misleading hit piece the American Future Fund began running in the same markets last week. The conservative group’s commercial claimed Braley “supports” building a mosque at the site of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. I will embed the 30-second response ad, called “They’re Back,” once it’s available on YouTube. For now, here is the transcript provided by the Braley campaign:

ANNCR: They’re back.

The folks behind the sleaziest ad in history – NOW backing Ben Lange…lying about Bruce Braley.

Truth is, Braley says New Yorkers should decide about building near Ground Zero…

…just as IOWANS should decide things HERE.

Big corporations are hitting Braley because he’d END tax breaks for those shipping jobs overseas.

Gutter politics fueled by corporate cash may work for Ben Lange.

But Bruce knows who HE works for.

TAG: I’m Bruce Braley and I approve this message.

When the voice-over says “the sleaziest ad in history,” the viewer sees a screen shot of the notorious Willie Horton commercial from the 1988 presidential campaign. (The American Future Fund has worked with some very slimy Republican media consultants.) When the voice-over says, “Gutter politics fueled by corporate cash may work for Ben Lange,” a photo of Braley’s Republican challenger is in the center of the screen, with a shot of Willie Horton on the left and a shot from the American Future Fund’s commercial on the right.

Braley is wise to respond on television, because in a difficult political climate for Democrats, no incumbent should take re-election for granted. That said, I believe the American Future Fund’s planned “six-figure” campaign against Braley is more about wounding him for future elections than scoring an upset in IA-01 this year. Few observers think Lange has a chance in this D+5 district. Braley is an effective legislator with good constituent service and a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

UPDATE: Ed Tibbetts reports on reaction to the new ad:

Cody Brown, Lange’s campaign manager, responded to Braley’s ad on Monday, saying the campaign has no control over what the American Future Fund does.

“The point we were making is, he chalked it up to a local zoning decision,” he said. “To eastern Iowans, it’s more than that.”

Nick Ryan, who runs the American Future Fund, said Braley was resorting to “name calling and petty partisan politics.”

The Braley campaign did not say how much it was spending on the ad.

American Future Fund said it spent $50,000 on its ad.

Representative Leonard Boswell’s campaign held a press conference this morning to announce an endorsement from Mark Rees, who finished fourth in the seven-way Republican primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Rees positioned himself as a moderate and mostly self-funded his campaign. He only won about 4 percent of the GOP primary votes. From a Boswell campaign press release:

“Boswell’s lifelong record of service to this state and our country is rarely seen in politics today,” Rees said. “His character, judgment, and integrity are without question. I trust Congressmen Boswell. I trust him to listen to his constituents and place our interests above his Party. I trust him to make sound, solid decisions void of any self-interest. And above all else, I trust him to always represent this state with honor and integrity.”

Boswell accepted the endorsement and praised Rees for representing a moderate voice in the GOP primary election.

“During the primary, Mark did not indulge in emotionally-charged rhetoric to score political points, and instead offered substantive policy viewpoints,” Boswell said. “His support is a testament to my history as a legislator in Congress, as I have always sought the middle ground in order to bring about solutions for our country. I look forward to working with Mark as we look toward the November election.”

WHO’s Dave Price reports that at today’s press conference, Rees “didn’t say anything bad” about Republican nominee Brad Zaun, but he did answer “yes” when asked “if Zaun was too extreme for the party.” The Republican Party of Iowa questioned whether Rees was really a Republican, noting that he voted in the 2006 Democratic primary. A statement from Zaun’s campaign suggested that Rees is a hypocrite for supporting “a 14-year, career politician who embodies ‘business as usual’ in Washington, DC” after claiming during the primary that voters he met were frustrated “with career politicians and business as usual in Washington.”

When the Boswell campaign announced Friday that a Republican would endorse the Democrat today, I was hoping for more of a game-changer than Rees, who isn’t well-known outside West Des Moines. That said, Rees may be able to help Boswell among moderate Republicans and independents in some swingy suburban precincts. About two-thirds of Rees’ votes in the GOP primary came from Polk County (where Zaun is unusually strong).  Within Polk County, Rees’ support came primarily from the western suburbs of Des Moines, especially West Des Moines, Clive and Johnston. Rees’ stands on the issues are a better fit for moderates than Zaun’s, so his support may help Boswell claim the center this fall. Meanwhile, Republicans will keep recycling their rhetoric about “liberal” Boswell serving Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco agenda, blah blah blah.