Rasmussen released a new poll of Iowa’s U.S. Senate race yesterday, and they found Chuck Grassley in safe territory, leading Roxanne Conlin 59-31, Bob Krause 59-26 and Tom Fiegen 61-25.

Conlin performs best among Democratic voters, but all three Democrats lose anywhere from 22% to 30% of their own party’s vote to Grassley. The Republican carries voters not affiliated with either party by more than 35 points against any of the Democrats.

Rasmussen surveyed 500 “likely voters” in Iowa on January 26. The poll has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

Even taking into account Rasmussen’s “house effect” (a tendency to show more favorable results for Republican candidates), Grassley is above 50 percent and therefore in safe territory for an incumbent. He is going to be re-elected unless he starts making unforced errors. In 2006, Senator George Allen of Virginia had commanding leads over Jim Webb for quite some time before multiple gaffes allowed Webb to win. Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky almost blew a very big lead in 2004 against Dan Mongiardo.

Despite the long odds, it’s still worth taking the fight to Grassley. Iowa Democrats have given him a pass too many times. Under pressure, he may start making mistakes on the campaign trail. Even if he doesn’t, keeping him below 60 percent would be a lot better for down-ticket Democrats than letting Grassley win with 70 percent, as happened in 2004.

Share any thoughts about the Senate race in this thread.

After deliberating for less than an hour, a Kansas jury found anti-abortion fanatic Scott Roeder guilty of first degree murder for shooting Dr. George Tiller in church last May. Roeder admitted killing Tiller and will be sentenced in March. Prosecutors are seeking a 50-year sentence with no possibility for parole. If Roeder is sentenced to life in prison, he could be eligible for parole in 25 years. During the trial,

[Sedgwick County District Judge Warren] Wilbert had barred Roeder from using a so-called necessity defense, aiming for an acquittal by arguing that the killing was necessary to prevent a greater harm – killing babies. But the judge allowed Roeder to present evidence that he sincerely believed his actions were justified to save unborn children – a defense that could have led to a conviction on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.

On Thursday afternoon, however, Wilbert ruled that he would not give jurors the option of considering a voluntary manslaughter conviction, because such a defense requires that a person must be stopping the imminent use of unlawful force.

Unfortunately, Roeder succeeded in shutting down Tiller’s clinic, one of very few facilities where women could receive late-term abortions. Contrary to the propaganda you may have heard from the anti-choice movement, women seeking care from Dr. Tiller didn’t just casually decide during the second or third trimester that they didn’t feel like having children.

Kansas state law allows abortions on viable fetuses after the 21st week only if carrying the pregnancy to term would endanger the mother’s life or cause a “substantial and irreversible impairment” of a major bodily function. Courts have interpreted a “major bodily function” to include mental health.

Amanda Marcotte wrote before Tiller was murdered,

The argument for attacking Tiller is that he performs late term abortions, which are supposedly worse than early term ones, even though anti-choicers claim that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 5-year-old child, so that shows that their targeting of late term providers is cynical politicking on its face.  But if you actually bother to look at why women get late term abortions, the targeting Dr. Tiller becomes even more horrifying.  Generally speaking, you’re talking about women who really wanted to have a baby, but who can’t have this one, because something is wrong with her health or that of the fetus.  Because of the sensitive nature of the situation, Dr. Tiller’s office offers a great deal of counseling services to their patients, who are often suffering trauma because of what’s happening to them.  In addition to counseling, there are baptism and funerary services, as well as photographing and footprinting, for people who want to say goodbye to the baby that they expected to have but couldn’t.  The levels of hate projected at Dr. Tiller are directly proportional to the levels of care he shows for women during this rough period of their lives.

Although Roeder will spend a long time in prison, it’s hard to feel justice has been served when he accomplished his goal.

State Senator Brad Zaun announced today that his campaign started running this television ad:

Five Republicans are competing in the primary to face Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Zaun is the first to go up on television. The ad hits very safe themes, with Zaun promising to “restore trust” and “common sense conservative values.” He also calls for ending deficits and “corporate bailouts” and notes that he will listen and believes the Constitution “means something.” I will update this post if I receive more details on the ad buy. I heard it is running on the CBS affiliate in Des Moines, but I don’t know yet about cable networks.

I haven’t seen any fundraising numbers from Zaun’s campaign. Jim Gibbons, who is backed by some very large Republican donors, raised about $207,000 during the last six weeks of 2009. He hired a campaign manager last month.

Dave Funk, darling of the Tea Party crowd, raised about $39,500 last year and started 2010 with about $16,500 on hand. He has hired several campaign staffers.

Craig Robinson of The Iowa Republican said Mark Rees has given his own campaign $50,000. Rees is campaigning as a relatively moderate Republican, and I’m curious to see whether he can get traction in a crowded field. He hired a campaign manager earlier this month.

The Senate voted to confirm Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve today, but it was hardly a ringing endorsement:

The 70 to 30 vote was the thinnest approval ever extended to a chairman in the central bank’s 96-year history.

The confirmation was a victory for President Obama, who had called Mr. Bernanke an architect of the recovery, but also signaled the extent to which the Fed, once little known to the public, has become the object of populist outrage over high unemployment and Wall Street bailouts.

In several hours of debate, senators said the Fed had abetted, then ignored, the housing and credit bubbles and allowed banks to keep dangerously low capital reserves and to make reckless lending decisions that ruined consumers. Some even blamed Mr. Bernanke for the falling dollar and questioned his commitment to free enterprise.

In contrast, Mr. Bernanke’s supporters were muted. Like a mantra, they said that the Fed had made mistakes but that Mr. Bernanke had helped save the economy from a far worse recession.

Eleven Democrats, 18 Republicans and independent Bernie Sanders voted against confirming Bernanke (roll call here).

Senators of both parties who opposed Bernanke said his monetary policy and poor oversight contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008. Various Democrats who voted against Bernanke said he had been too beholden to Wall Street interests.

I still think it was a mistake for Obama to nominate Bernanke for another term, but let’s hope the Fed chairman our mild-mannered economic overlord improves on the job.

UPDATE: MIT economist Simon Johnson argues that Bernanke’s reappointment was “a colossal failure of governance.” Worth a read.

SECOND UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 notes that seven senators voted for cloture (allowing the Senate to proceed to consider Bernanke’s nomination) before voting against confirming him. Here is the roll call on the cloture vote. The senators who voted for cloture but against Bernanke are Democrats Tom Harkin, Barbara Boxer (CA), Byron Dorgan (ND), Al Franken (MN), Ted Kaufman (DE), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), along with Republican George LeMieux (FL).

Republican Kent Sorenson’s narrow victory over State Representative Mark Davitt in Iowa House district 74 was perhaps the biggest upset in the state in 2008. The Democratic-leaning district includes much of Warren County, including Indianola and the Simpson College campus. Sorenson decided to run against Staci Appel in Iowa Senate district 37 instead of running for re-election to the House.

Scott Ourth announced plans to run for this seat in October and was already pounding the pavement months before that. I’d heard he was working hard, and I noticed that he reported strong fundraising in his filing with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. I didn’t realize until today that Ourth raised the bar for Democrats running for the Iowa House:

Ourth, a 50-year-old Democrat from Ackworth, claimed $37,359 in campaign contributions for 2009. The earnings, listed on a Jan. 19 disclosure form, trumped Rep. Tyler Olson’s 2005 record for the most money raised by a first-time Democratic candidate in the year prior to election year, according to Pat Murphy, speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives.

“No first-time candidate for the Iowa House from our party has ever gained this much financial support this early in the campaign cycle,” Murphy said in a prepared statement. “Mr. Ourth works very hard. His fundraising report definitely bears that out.” […]

More than 200 people donated by Jan. 1, including slightly more than 20 political action committees.

Ourth spent nearly $4,500, leaving him with approximately $32,800 on hand. Most of his expenses consisted of office equipment – he plans to use his home for a campaign headquarters, he said – and event invitations, according to his disclosure form.

The article goes on to say that at least one Republican plans to run in House district 74, but I haven’t heard any names floated. We’ll find out before the March filing deadline. Iowa House Republican leaders raised a lot of money last year, so they will be in a position to help out the eventual candidate here. But if I were in their position I would think hard before investing a lot in this district. Whoever jumps in for the GOP will start out way behind Ourth in retail campaigning as well as fundraising. Republicans have better opportunities to win some Democratic-held seats in other parts of the state, and some of their challengers will also need more money to be competitive.

House district 74 is likely to remain the best pickup opportunity for Democrats this year, but assuming Rod Roberts stays in the governor’s race, I like our chances in House district 51 too. (There are still a lot of Democrats in the Carroll area.) Picking up one or two Republican-held seats would make it much more difficult for the GOP to take back the Iowa House, where Democrats now have a 56-44 majority.

Any comments about state legislative races are welcome in this thread.

The Des Moines Register’s William Petroski reports today that the Obama administration declined requests for federal money to support Amtrak routes between Chicago and Iowa City and between Chicago and Dubuque.

A list of grants issued Wednesday night by the White House shows that Iowa will receive only $18 million in federal railroad passenger money. This includes $1 million to study a proposed passenger train that would run daily between Chicago and Omaha, including stops in the Quad Cities, Iowa City and Des Moines.

The remaining $17 million will be used to install four remote- controlled powered crossovers on the BNSF Railway tracks in the Ottumwa area. This will reduce travel times and improve on-time performance on Amtrak’s existing California Zephyr train that runs across southern Iowa, federal officials said.

Iowa and Illinois officials had sought $256 million in federal funds for the Chicago to Iowa City route, which would go through the Quad Cities, and $139 million for the Chicago to Dubuque route.

Dubuque and the Quad Cities may get passenger rail despite today’s disappointing news:

Even without the federal money, Illinois officials expect to begin Amtrak service between Chicago and Dubuque and Chicago and the Quad Cities, possibly within two years, officials said. That’s because Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a $31 billion capital construction package last year to ensure the rail expansion.

But the federal grants would have bolstered both projects and would have assured the extension of the train service to Iowa City, and possibly eventually to Des Moines, officials said.

A feasibility study from 2008 showed promising numbers for an Amtrak route connecting Iowa City to the Quad Cities. A huge number of University of Iowa students are from the Chicago area, and many people living in that region of Iowa travel to Chicago for business or entertainment.

In comments to the Des Moines Reigster, Davenport Mayor Bill Gluba predicted yesterday that the Chicago to Iowa City train would receive some federal funding by 2013, even if the current grant request was denied. I hope he turns out to be right.

UPDATE: Governor Chet Culver’s response to this news is after the jump.

Representative Bruce Braley advocated a four-point “Blueprint for Recovery” in Politico yesterday. The House Populist Caucus, which Braley formed last year, has endorsed these proposals to “require Wall Street to pay for economic development on Main Street and to pay down our nation’s deficit.”

Compensation. We need to change the culture of limitless bonuses by passing the Wall Street Bonus Tax Act (H.R. 4426). America’s middle-class families saw their savings wiped out by Wall Street’s gambling addictions and then watched as their tax dollars went to save troubled banks. The targeted tax would apply only to executives at banks that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funding who took bonuses in excess of $50,000. The Bonus Tax Act would generate billions of dollars of new revenue that would be directed exclusively to reward small businesses that are investing in new jobs.

Speculation. We need to stop excessive and risky speculation on Wall Street by passing the Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act (H.R. 4191). This legislation would reinstate a tiny transaction fee on speculative stock transactions by Wall Street traders, creating $150 billion annually in new revenue that would be dedicated to job creation and reducing the deficit.

Job creation. A “jobless recovery” is not a recovery for the middle class. With a national unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent, it’s clear America’s middle-class families are still struggling to make ends meet.

That’s why we need to take the following two-pronged approach to creating good-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced: We need to pass the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act (H.R. 2521), which would establish a wholly owned government corporation to prioritize infrastructure improvement projects that would create good-paying jobs. We also need to pass the Buy American Improvement Act (H.R. 4351) to eliminate loopholes in existing domestic sourcing laws and ensure that taxpayer money is used to purchase American-made products and support American jobs whenever possible.

Click here for more details on the Wall Street transaction fees the Populist Caucus supports. The idea is worthwhile, but I am skeptical that the current economic team in the Obama administration would get behind it.

I’m not clear on why a new government corporation on infrastructure projects needs to be created (as opposed to just appropriating more funds for existing agencies to spend on high-speed rail, affordable housing or other infrastructure needs). I asked Braley’s office for comment on that part of the blueprint and received this reply:

The Populist Caucus believes we need a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) now to invest in merit-based infrastructure projects-both traditional and technological-by leveraging private capital. In recent years, the private sector has raised more than $100 billion in dedicated infrastructure funds, but most of that money is being invested overseas.  We need an NIB to attract those funds into a U.S. market for infrastructure development.

It’s notable that the Populist Caucus is not backing broader populist measures, such as tax hikes for corporations and the top 1 percent of individual earners. Then again, Braley’s caucus prepared and approved this “blueprint” before Oregon residents approved two tax-raising ballot initiatives this week.

I won’t be liveblogging President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight, but here’s a thread for the Bleeding Heartland community to chat away. If you’re looking for a liveblog, I recommend Congress Matters or Open Left, where the threads don’t get crowded as quickly as at Daily Kos. The Des Moines Register set up a live chat here with “politics reporter Tom Beaumont and featured bloggers Connor Anderson, John Deeth, Graham Gillette, Steffen Schmidt and Art Smith.”

Alternatively, here’s a State of the Union drinking game (another variant is here).

Political Wire already posted excerpts from Obama’s speech. There are no surprises anymore.

Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia will give the Republican response, but I think everyone is more interested to see whether there’s an outburst during the speech similar to Joe “You Lie!” Wilson’s last year.

I’ll update this thread later with some reactions to the speech.

Off-topic: Social historian Howard Zinn died today at the age of 87. Here’s a quotable quote from him: “If the gods had intended for people to vote, they would have given us candidates.”

LATE UPDATE: I caught part of the speech. I had the sinking feeling that Congress will act on everything Obama advocates that I oppose (new oil drilling, nuclear power plants, more money for “clean coal”), but won’t do the things I support (ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell). He wasn’t specific enough about how Congress should move forward on health care reform. I did like his line about how Democrats still have the largest majorities either party has had in decades, and Americans elected them to solve problems, not “run for the hills.”

The full text of Obama’s speech (as prepared) is after the jump.

Steven Pearlstein wrote the speech Obama would give “in a more honest world.”

Reacting to the Republican response delivered by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Steve Singiser pointed out a fundamental contradiction in the GOP stance on health care: on the one hand, they say we shouldn’t let the government take over health care, and on the other hand, they promise not to let the Democrats cut Medicare.

Roxanne Conlin’s campaign for U.S. Senate released partial fundraising numbers today, and they are impressive:

Total cash raised (Nov. 2 – Dec. 31):

$603,575.44

Cash on hand:

$502,832.84

Total individual donors:  1,649 (1,395 Iowans/85% Iowans)

Online supporters signed up:  Over 31,000

Donations $100 and under: 1,332

Donations $250 and under: 1,433

All of Conlin’s campaign contributions came from individual supporters, because she has pledged not to accept contributions from federal lobbyists or PACs. (I wouldn’t have advised her to take that stance, because there are PACs and lobbyists fighting for good things as well as those working against the public interest.) In any event, she has shown that she can raise enough money to staff and run a statewide campaign. Conlin is about a third of the way through a 99-county tour she began earlier this month.

I haven’t seen year-end fundraising numbers from Senator Chuck Grassley yet. At the end of the third quarter of 2009, he had more than $4.4 million cash on hand, so clearly he will still be way ahead in the money race. During the third quarter, when Grassley played a high-profile role in health care reform negotiations, he raised $864,622 total, of which $364,295 came from political action committees.

In other words, Conlin raised more from individual donors in two months than Grassley raised from individuals during the third quarter. That’s a strong pace, and it suggests a lot of Iowans are motivated to take the fight to Grassley. Conlin has already raised nearly five times as much as Democrat Art Small spent during his entire 2004 campaign against Iowa’s senior senator.

I don’t have new fundraising numbers from the other Democrats running against Grassley. Bob Krause raised $7,430 during the third quarter, ending with $3,493 on hand. Tom Fiegen raised $3,781 during the third quarter, ending with $519 on hand. I like many of the statements I’ve heard from Krause and Fiegen, but they have yet to show that they will be able to run a statewide campaign, and therefore appear to be extreme underdogs leading up to the Democratic primary in June. Neither Krause nor Fiegen seems likely to drop out of this race, however. On the contrary, Fiegen called on Conlin to quit the race last month, saying Republican attacks on her would divert attention from Grassley and the “needs of working families.” Yesterday Krause criticized one of Conlin’s tax credit proposals.

Grassley will be very tough to beat. His approval rating has fallen but is still above 50 percent, and he has set a goal of raising $9 million for this race. Even if Democrats don’t manage to defeat Grassley, giving him a spirited challenge is well worth the effort. Driving up turnout among Democrats whom Grassley has alienated can only help our candidates down-ticket.

UPDATE: Rasmussen conducted a one-day poll of this race on January 26. Grassley leads Conlin 59 to 31, Krause 59 to 26 and Fiegen 61 to 25 (margin of error 4.5 percent).

Senator Chuck Grassley said today he will vote against giving Ben Bernanke another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. According to the Des Moines Register,

“I’ll vote no because of concerns of inflation and a pattern of resistance to accountability,” Grassley said. […]

Grassley dismissed the argument that defeating Bernanke would throw the financial markets off course. […]

“The Fed takes action once a month that affects the stock market,” Grassley added. “And we’re still going to have a Fed chairman. So, what’s the big deal?”

I find it odd that Grassley is concerned primarily about inflation in the current economic environment, and as Bleeding Heartland user PrairieBreezeCheese pointed out, even 1970s-like inflation is very different from the “hyper-inflation” Grassley warned about yesterday. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the only Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee to vote against confirming Bernanke last month, has laid out a stronger case against giving him another term. I am also in rare agreement with Republican Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who has called for all senators to have a chance to review some unpublished Federal Reserve documents before voting on Bernanke’s nomination.

I’ve seen many different “whip counts” on Bernanke. It appears he will have little trouble gaining the support of at least 50 senators, and I doubt his nomination will be filibustered, because some Democrats who plan to vote against confirming him will vote for cloture.

Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted no on Tuesday as the Senate rejected an amendment to “establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future prosperity and growth for all Americans.”

President Barack Obama supported creating that commission, which is the brainchild of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad. The goal is to find some way to get big Social Security and Medicare cuts through Congress. Don’t get me started on why a Democratic president and a bunch of Democratic senators are so keen on cutting the most successful programs Democrats have ever enacted.

Anyway, Conrad’s idea was for the commission to work out a comprehensive deficit reduction strategy, which Congress would be not be empowered to amend before voting on it. Two decades ago, a similar procedure was developed for recommending military base closings to Congress.

Conrad’s amendment, offered to a bill that raises the U.S. debt ceiling, failed on a bipartisan 53-46 vote. 36 Democrats, 16 Republicans and Joe Lieberman voted for creating the deficit reduction commission, while 22 Democrats, 23 Republicans and Bernie Sanders voted no (roll call here). Bloomberg News reported,

Conrad’s idea was attacked from the left and right, with groups such as the Washington-based anti-tax Americans for Tax Reform saying it would mean higher taxes while the AFL-CIO and NAACP said it would lead to cuts in federal benefits.

It was also opposed by lawmakers who lead congressional committees with authority over tax and spending programs. Among them are Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Tom Harkin of Iowa, head of the health-care panel.

Senate Republican Conference Chair Lamar Alexander told Politico that Obama needs to “produce a Democratic majority in favor of” this idea if he wants more Republicans to vote for it.

During tonight’s State of the Union address, Obama is expected to announce plans to create his own deficit reduction commission. Bloomberg noted yesterday that “Such a panel’s recommendations ordinarily could be ignored by lawmakers, although Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, is trying to negotiate an agreement to guarantee a vote.”

Too bad the wrong North Dakota Democrat is retiring from the Senate.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

On Oprah Magazine’s new list of “100 Things That Are Getting Better”:

Legalizing gay marriage in 2009 + producing artisanal charcuterie (try La Quercia’s organic prosciutto) + University of Iowa football landing among the top 25 college teams for the fifth time this decade + ranking second on MainStreet.com‘s Happiness Index = one seriously happening Hawkeye State.

That’s an odd set of data points, but then, the whole list is rather eclectic. Iowa ranks just behind “Our reputation around the world,” “The Beatles” and “Undersea exploration” and just ahead of “Surgery,” “Wind power” and “Dental visits.”

I didn’t realize Oprah was on record supporting marriage equality, but good for her. I don’t eat prosciutto, but I’ve heard good things about La Quercia. (Oprah neglected to acknowledge Iowa’s outstanding artisan cheeses.)

Iowa ranked second on MainStreet.com’s Happiness Index because of the 50 states plus Washington, DC, we had the fourth-lowest rate of non-mortgage debt as a percentage of annual income, the fifth-lowest unemployment rate, and the sixteenth-lowest foreclosure rate. Only Nebraska scored better overall.

Now, nobody tell Oprah about our lousy water quality.  

Senator Tom Harkin told the Des Moines Register and Radio Iowa today that he will vote against confirming Ben Bernanke to another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Radio Iowa quoted him as saying he’s “tired of being held hostage by Wall Street”:

“I just think Mr. Bernanke is going to continue the policy of The Fed of taking care of the big financial institutions and to heck with Main Street,” Harkin says.

Harkin faults Bernanke for the handling of the Wall Street bailout. “Mr. Bernanke gave away trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to AIG at almost zero percent interest rate, and then they turned around and they held their counterparties – French, Germans, Swiss and many others – harmless. They didn’t have to take a hair cut at all,” Harkin says, “They got paid off in full and yet we (taxpayers) lost trillions.” […]

“I’ve had it with being told that some bank is too big to fail and I’ve had it with being told that someone, some person is so important that we have to have that person in this position.  That’s nonsense,” Harkin says.

Looks like someone didn’t get the memo about “our mild-mannered economic overlord” saving the country. Good for Harkin.

Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Grassley told the Des Moines Register, “I think I made a decision [on Bernanke] […] But I don’t think I’ll announce it.” Grassley went on to criticize the Fed for doing too little to fight inflation, suggesting we could be on a path to hyper-inflation like we had in 1979.

With unemployment at a 26-year high, I’m surprised Grassley is so concerned about hyper-inflation. Economists, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t deflation a greater risk right now?

I have been ready to pull the plug on the climate change bill for a while now. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which narrowly passed the House last June, gave too much away to polluting industries and wouldn’t increase renewable energy production beyond what we are likely to see if no bill passes. More broadly, Mark Schapiro’s recent piece in Harper’s Magazine argues persuasively that a cap-and-trade system lets some people make a lot of money selling fake emission reductions.

Climate change legislation can only get worse in the Senate, where too many senators are beholden to corporate interests in the energy and agricultural sectors. Even before the Massachusetts special election brought the Democratic caucus down to 59 seats, key Senate Democrats were either asking for more giveaways to coal-burning utilities or begging the White House not to pursue the cap-and-trade system at all.

This month Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan predicted that the Senate will pass a stand-alone energy bill to expand energy production in various ways without capping greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, you can count on the Senate to throw more money toward boosting fossil fuel production than renewable energy.

I agree with those who say we need comprehensive federal action to fight global warming, but the environmental movement needs to adapt to the realities in Congress.

Last year dozens of environmental groups focused their staff energy and mobilized volunteers to advocate for a sweeping climate change bill. This year we need to focus resources on where the real battle lies. Instead of urging citizens to sign petitions and call their senators about cap-and-trade, which is looking like a dead letter, we need to fight for the strongest possible renewable electricity standard in the energy bill.

More important, we need to block efforts to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Last month the EPA took a big step toward regulating global warming pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced a resolution to overturn the EPA rules and has three Democratic co-sponsors so far. Stopping Murkowski’s effort should be a top priority for environmentalists.

One complicating factor: some environmental groups have received grants to support advocacy on climate change legislation. I would encourage charitable foundations and other large donors to be flexible about how such money is spent. Cap-and-trade is going nowhere. Let environmentalists focus on the real fights in Congress this year.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

Final note: Murkowski is at war with the EPA even though she represents Alaska, one of the states most affected by global warming. Is she stupid, corrupt or both?

I was just reading that Janet Yellen, recently mentioned as a possible replacement for Fed chair Ben Bernanke, is considered on Wall Street to be an “inflation dove,” which means that she considers maintaining full employment to be -gasp!- “as important” as controlling inflation.

I also wonder about Brad DeLong at Berkeley. He was in the Treasury Department in the Clinton Administration. He's a free trader, which I guess is neither here nor there when it comes to monetary policy (and not necessarily bad in any case), but I like that he's an economic historian.

In any case, we strongly need someone who will put reducing unemployment tops on the list. I know, from personal experience, how unemployment can convulse a family…

Please tell me our president is smarter than this:

President Obama will propose freezing non-security discretionary government spending for the next three years, a sweeping plan to attempt deficit reduction that will save taxpayers $250 billion over 10 years.

When the administration releases its budget next week, the discretionary spending for government agencies from Health and Human Services to the Department of Treasury will be frozen at its 2010 level in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013. […]

Exempted from the freeze would be Pentagon funding, and the budgets for Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security.

Instead of delivering his State of the Union address this week, Barack Obama may as well hold up a big sign that says, “I want Democrats to lose Congress.” Over at Daily Kos, eugene explains why:

That will be the equivalent of FDR’s boneheaded move in 1937 to pull back on government spending. The result was a major recession that caused conservatives to win a lot of seats in the 1938 election and brought the New Deal to an end.

Yet FDR had already won his second term. Obama, on the other hand, is embracing a policy that has been proven to fail even before the midterm elections.

If he thinks this is even a realistic or economically feasible policy, he is out of his mind. If he thinks this will save his and Democrats’ political bacon, he is very badly mistaken. Only greater government spending – MUCH greater spending – will pull us out of recession, create jobs, and produce lasting recovery.

Without greater spending, Obama is implying he is willing to live with high unemployment for the remainder of his first term. If one wanted to deal with the deficit, he could follow Bill Clinton’s model of producing economic growth that would close the deficit in future years.

Economically, this course would be a disaster, but politically it’s even a worse move. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised hundreds of times that we would be able to spend more on various domestic priorities because we wouldn’t be spending $200 billion a year in Iraq. With the escalation in Afghanistan, the combined cost of our commitments there and in Iraq will now exceed Bush administration levels, and Obama isn’t cutting fat from other areas in the Pentagon budget to make up for it.

It’s as if Obama wants Democrats to stay home this November.

A month ago, I would have said Republicans had a 10 to 20 percent chance of retaking the House and zero chance of retaking the Senate. The Massachusetts election has already prompted several Democratic incumbents to retire and prospective challengers not to run. If Obama puts deficit reduction ahead of job creation this year, I give the GOP a good chance of winning the House and an outside shot at taking the Senate (which would require a nine-seat gain, assuming Joe Lieberman would switch parties).

Obama told Diane Sawyer today, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” At this rate, he’ll be neither.

UPDATE: So some people are claiming this is no big deal because the spending freeze isn’t an across-the-board freeze, “would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget” and locks in a bunch of spending increases from last year. I am not interested in endlessly increasing the defense budget while holding the line on the EPA, Energy, Transportation, HUD and other areas. That’s not the agenda Obama campaigned on, and it’s not smart from any perspective.

Chris Bowers raises a better point, which is that “the people who actually write spending bills–members of the House Appropriation and Budget committees–say they won’t be freezing or cutting social spending.” So this is just window dressing for the State of the Union to show the wise men of the beltway that Obama is very, very concerned about the deficit. Still not the kind of leadership we need from our president.

SECOND UPDATE: Brad DeLong has a must-read post up on this proposal (“Dingbat Kabuki”).

THIRD UPDATE: Turkana helpfully compiled excerpts from seven liberal economists’ comments on Obama’s new proposal. Spoiler alert: they’re not impressed.

In a private meeting last October, Terry Branstad warned social conservatives that gay marriage was “not going to be a central issue” in the gubernatorial campaign, and that Republicans “have to use finesse, and not overplay our hand.”

Since Branstad officially launched his candidacy last week, we’re starting to see how he intends to “finesse” the marriage issue before the Republican primary in June.

I wanted to let Bleeding Heartland readers know about some recent additions to the blog. First, there are buttons at the bottom of each post to make it easier to share links via Facebook, Twitter, Digg or StumbleUpon.

Second, a free Bleeding Heartland application is now available for iPhone or Android users. The application lets you read posts, view recent topics covered, and search for stories containing certain names or keywords. The application can also send you alerts (free text messages) within a few minutes whenever a new post goes up here, and lets you access the story faster than if you used your phone’s web browser.

After the jump I’ve posted a couple of screen shots of the new application, which looks the same on iPhone and Android. Here is the link for the Bleeding Heartland iPhone application at the iTunes store. Android users can find it by searching for “Bleeding Heartland” on your phone.

Feedback or other suggestions for improvement are welcome in this thread.

Pre-emptive response: if you feel I don’t cover a certain topic often enough, please create an account and post your own diaries when you feel a particular story or viewpoint needs attention. That’s why I run a community blog. Diaries can be about any local, statewide or national subject you think would interest the Bleeding Heartland community.

The Iowa Renewable Energy Association announced Friday that it will receive $100,000 in federal stimulus money awarded by the Iowa Office of Energy Independence.

I-Renew will receive $100,000 under the training and information program to expand its staff in order to provide training related to wind, solar, and solar thermal in at least 24 workshops over the next two years. Introductory and advance level courses will be offered. […]

In addition, I-Renew will coordinate with Midwest Renewable Energy Association (MREA) to ensure that workshops of­fered by I-Renew fulfill the prerequisites for the MREA intermediate and advanced offerings.

For years, I-RENEW has run workshops for homeowners on installing renewable energy technology. The new workshop series will focus on training professional installers, who will be able to provide that service for many more Iowa homes and buildings. Lots of people who aren’t DIY types may be interested in having a wind turbine or solar panels on their property.

This program is only one small part of the federal stimulus bill, but it will yield long-term benefits in terms of cost and energy savings.

In October, State Representative Mark Kuhn announced plans to retire from the Iowa House, where he has represented district 14 since 1999. District 14 (map in pdf file) contains all of Floyd and Mitchell Counties, plus a small part of Cerro Gordo County.

Democrat Kurt Meyer announced plans to run for this House seat in December, but I missed the story at the time. Bleeding Heartland readers may remember Meyer from the 2008 Democratic primary campaign in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. He finished second in that race, behind Becky Greenwald. Meyer has spent most of his career as a consultant for non-profit organizations. His family has lived in rural Mitchell County for five generations. His name recognition in the area should be strong, and I doubt he will have any trouble raising enough money to run a good campaign.

The Republican candidate in House district 14 is Josh Byrnes, the agricultural and industrial technology division chairman at North Iowa Area Community College.

Kuhn will run for the Floyd County Board of Supervisors in 2010. He served on that board before being elected to the Iowa House in 1998.