Representative Tom Latham has enjoyed some nice weekends on the dime of his For America’s Republican Majority PAC, I learned from a must-read piece by Jason Hancock at Iowa Independent.

A golf outing in West Virginia and a weekend getaway to Atlantic City, N.J., are just two of the trips taken this year by U.S. Rep. Tom Latham of Ames that have garnered the attention of campaign finance watchdogs.

That’s because the trips were paid for by Latham’s political action committee and touted as fundraising events, a practice that is legal but that government reform advocates contend turns the PAC into little more than a slush fund designed to skirt campaign finance law.

Go read Hancock’s piece for details on Latham’s fundraising trips to the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort in Atlantic City and various high-end golf resorts in West Virginia and California. Latham’s PAC “raised $205,447 during the 2008 election cycle, with almost all of it coming from lobbyists, PACs and corporate leaders.”

A new report by ProPublica explains how leadership PACs function:

Legally, lawmakers are free to spend the leadership PAC money pretty much as they wish.

Lobbyists and lawmakers can — and do — use it to travel together to play golf at Pebble Beach, ride snowmobiles in Montana’s Big Sky Country and go deep-sea fishing in the Florida Keys. The lobbyists don’t pay the costs directly. They contribute to the leadership PAC, which then pays the lawmaker’s resort and travel bills.

Leadership PACs have grown steadily since they began cropping up in the 1970s. What separates them from campaign committees is that lawmakers are supposed to pass along the bulk of the money to other members of their party for their campaigns. That way, lawmakers with leadership PACs can earn their beneficiaries’ support when it comes time to divvy up committee chairmanships and other party leadership posts.

This system helps party leaders spread money to candidates with less money or tighter races. On the other hand, it also fuels the Washington money chase, allocates power in Congress based on fundraising prowess, and encourages lawmakers and lobbyists to mingle socially and recreationally as political money changes hands.

In this tough economy, couldn’t Latham encourage his corporate lobbyist buddies to golf, gamble and spread political money around in Iowa?  

In case you’re wondering whether everyone in Congress does what Latham’s been doing with his PAC, ProPublica’s report has lots more information on hundreds of leadership PACs. But Hancock notes that Iowa’s other members of Congress have used their leadership PAC money for campaign contributions and various expenses, as opposed to trips to high-end casinos and golf resorts.

According to a new study from Purdue University, future expansion of ethanol production from corn would mean higher loadings of fertilizers and pesticides to water resources.  The study found that water sources near fields of continuous corn had higher levels of nitrogen, phosphorous and fungicides than corn-soybean rotations.  The study did not compare perennial crops, but no doubt they would be even more protective of water resources because perennial crops better protect the soil from erosion and nitrate leaching, and require less pesticide use.

More information about the study can be found at http://www.laboratoryequipment…

This study calls attention to the urgent need to accelerate development of technology to produce biofuels from perennial crops, which protect the soil and require fewer inputs of fertilizers and pesticides than corn.  Technologies under development that would fill this need include cellulosic ethanol production and pyrolysis, both of which could use biomass from perennial crops.

Pyrolysis is a process of heating biomass in the absence of oxygen to produce gaseous and liquid fuels that can be converted to gasoline and diesel fuel.  Another byproduct of pyrolysis is biochar, a charcoal material that can serve as a carbon-sequestering soil amendment that improves soil fertility.

The future for biofuels production from perennial crops through pyrolysis looks promising, though more research is needed to fully develop the technology.  Pyrolysis produces a higher energy yield per unit of biomass and has a smaller carbon footprint than ethanol production.

The short of it is because Republicans have ZERO chance of taking back the Senate anytime soon.  I’ve felt since the ruling that it probably would never get overturned.  I got curious today and decided to investigate further.  So I started to think like a social conservative (it was scary) and tried to find any feasible way for this to pass the Lege in the near future.  

It will not pass in the 2010 session according to both the House and Senate leadership.  So the Repubs best hope is for a successful election in 2010 to make it possible.  It is in the realm of possibility that Repubs take back the House.  I really don’t think they will, but there are a lot of competitive races that could flip in a good year for them.  I could even see an amendment passing that chamber in the next couple sessions with “six-pack” help.  Incidentally, there are quite a few Republican-held seats that could flip for us in a good year as well.  I think redistricting will help us in 2012 too, but that is for another post.

The Senate is a different story.  There are precisely 4 competitive Democrat-held Senate districts that are up for re-election in 2010.  Those are, with 2006 results:

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 5

Rich Olive                       Democrat            11224

James Kurtenbach          

Republican          11162

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 9

Bill Heckroth                   Democrat            11902

James Kurtenbach          

Republican          10556

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 37

Staci Appel                     Democrat             12827

Julian Garrett                  Republican            12055

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 45

Becky Schmitz                Democrat              10362

David Miller                    Republican             10178

Source: Iowa SOS Website

Even if Republicans pull off all four of these races they will still be down 28-22.  I tend to think that Olive and Schmitz are safe.  Schmitz especially after the Hanson victory, which is half her district.  I don’t know much about Heckroth.  I currently reside in Appel’s district and that is going to be a dog fight I’d wager.    I’m going to do everything I can to help her (and you should too).  

That means that in all likelihood (and I trust Gronstal won’t budge, he tends not too)  That a constitutional amendment cannot possibly pass the Senate until AFTER the 2012 election.   We’ll have a guy named Obama at the top of the ticket that year and will hopefully improve down ballot organizing from ’08.  I like our chances.

My prediction is that it never even gets put to a vote.  Based on the above, the EARLIEST it could come up would be 2016.  I’m confident it would be soundly defeated by then if that were the case.  The polls already show it about even.  

My other prediction is that Republicans will go all out on this issue and thus alienate a whole generation of Iowans who are turned off by their bigoted agenda. I think this has already happened to an extent with Bush and company, but it will be a real problem for them in the future.  

It’s been raining all day, and the high’s only in the 50s, which has me thinking of soup.

Last Saturday I used a buttercup squash to make my first curried squash soup of the season. The recipe is after the jump.

This is my favorite carrot soup, with garlic, ginger and some Chinese flavors.

Another favorite on days like this is simple potato, carrot and leek soup.

I still have a huge kohlrabi to use up, so kohlrabi and potato soup with caraway is in my future.

What are you doing now that autumn has arrived?

If you’re an insurance company, that is:

Late in the afternoon [on Wednesday], Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the top Republican on the committee, requested consideration of the “Grassley F-1 Modified Amendment.” Its goal: eliminate $7 billion a year in fees that the government would charge private health insurance companies, and make up the shortfall by reducing benefits to poor people and legal immigrants.

It was dangerously close to a parody: Republicans demanding that fees be reduced on a profitable industry and shifted to low-income Americans. But Grassley pressed on, unafraid. The fees on the corporations, he said, are a “bad idea” and would undoubtedly result in higher insurance premiums. “I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, to strike the fees,” he exhorted.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) recognized the fat target that Grassley had just set up. “I think it’s a ‘message amendment,’ ” he said, suggesting Grassley was sending a symbolic signal to the conservative base. “It certainly takes on legal immigrants and Medicaid in a very sharp way.”

Grassley looked hurt. “You don’t really believe that this is a message amendment, do you?”

Why so cynical, Senator Rockefeller? I take Senator Grassley at his word. He would rather reduce health care coverage for poor people and immigrants (during a recession!) than force a profitable industry to pay higher fees.

I encourage Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen to add this Washington Post story to their Senate campaign websites.

In case anyone is wondering, I still have no idea who the mystery Grassley challenger might be.

UPDATE: Grassley also failed on Wednesday to get the committee to adopt “that would have required beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to show a photo ID in order to enroll.” However, the committee unanimously adopted Grassley’s amendment “that would require members of Congress to get their health insurance through a proposed federal exchange.”

The White House agreement with the pharmaceutical industry, which is reflected in the Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill, is one of the most shameful episodes of the health care reform process. Presidential candidate Barack Obama had promised to “put an end to the game-playing” in Washington, citing in one television ad the deal the pharmaceutical industry wrote into the Medicare prescription drug legislation. Yet in order to bring big Pharma on board with health care reform, the White House “stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.”

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota says no deal, according to Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post:

A Senate Democratic leader is hoping to blow up the deal reached between the White House, drug makers and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), by introducing an amendment on the floor to allow prescription drugs to be re-imported from Canada.

It’s one of the simplest ways to reduce health care costs but was ruled out by the agreement, which limits Big Pharma’s contribution to health care reform to $80 billion over ten years.

North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, a member of Democratic leadership, isn’t a party to that bargain. “Senator Dorgan intends to offer an amendment to the health reform bill and his expectation is that it will be one of the first amendments considered,” his spokesman Justin Kitsch told HuffPost in an e-mail. “Prescription drug importation is an immediate way to put downward pressure on health care costs. It has bipartisan support, and has been endorsed by groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses and AARP.” […]

Jim Manley, senior communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said that he sees no reason the amendment won’t get a floor vote.

If an amendment on reimporting drugs from Canada gets to the Senate floor, it is hard to see how it fails to pass. Grim notes that a separate bill to allow re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada “has 30 cosponsors, several Republicans among them.” I hope the White House doesn’t start twisting arms to keep that amendment off the Senate floor.

Giving the government the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices would bring costs down even more. Obama should support that reform, since he says he won’t let the health care bill add a dime to the deficit. But apparently, not taking that step was part of the White House deal with drug companies.

Speaking of backroom deals, Alexander Bolton reports for The Hill, citing “senior Democratic aides,” that Reid will “not include legislation repealing antitrust exemptions for the health insurance industry in the healthcare package he will bring to the Senate floor.”

So far the powerful insurance industry has held back waging a full-out battle against Democratic health reform proposals because companies stand to gain tens of millions of new customers. But adding language that would open health insurance companies to prosecution by the Justice Department would provoke a strong counterattack from the industry.

Hey, why take something valuable away from the insurance industry (the ability to fix prices) just because we’re about to hand them a “bonanza” (individual mandate to buy their products)? They might run ads against us.

It is time to replace Reid as Senate majority leader. Since Senate Democrats are unlikely to take that step, I agree with Chris Bowers that Reid losing re-election next year wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Getting a more effective majority leader, like Dick Durbin of Illinois or Chuck Schumer of New York, would make up for losing Reid’s Senate seat.

As expected, the Senate Finance Committee rejected two amendments yesterday that would have added a public health insurance option to the health care reform bill Chairman Max Baucus drafted with a big assist from industry lobbyists. Five Democrats voted with all the committee Republicans against Senator Jay Rockefeller’s amendment, which would have created a national public option tied to Medicare rates. Three Democrats also joined Republicans to vote down Senator Chuck Schumer’s much weaker “national level playing field” public option. CA Berkeley WV liveblogged yesterday’s hearing for Congress Matters.

Senator Chuck Grassley sang the same old song about the “government run plan” forcing private insurance companies out of business. He got a little tripped up when Senator Chuck Schumer asked him for his views on Medicare, though.

“I think that Medicare is part of the social fabric of America just like Social Security is,” Mr. Grassley said. “To say that I support it is not to say that it’s the best system that it could be.”

“But it is a government-run plan,” Mr. Schumer shot back.

Mr. Grassley, a veteran Senate debater, insisted that Medicare did not pose a threat to the private insurance industry. “It’s not easy to undo a Medicare plan without also hurting a lot of private initiatives that are coupled with it,” he said.

Chairman Baucus scored highest on the chutzpah meter, praising the public option even as he refused to support it. Grassley also held out false hope that maybe someday some other bill will accomplish that goal.

Several Senate Democrats, including Tom Harkin, insisted yesterday that they will get some kind of public option into the bill that reaches the Senate floor. After the jump you’ll find lots of links on the battles to come.

I agree that the public option is not dead yet, but for it to survive, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will need to do a lot more than they’ve done so far to lean on the Senate conservadems.  

The Congressional Democrats’ stampede to join Republican efforts to defund ACORN was stupid on many levels, as Paul Rosenberg explained in this post. Among other things, Rosenberg argued, Democrats empowered and validated the GOP’s strategy of demonization. They may have thought cutting off ACORN’s funding would cause Republicans to stop exploiting the issue, but of course, the opposite is true.

Like many Iowa Democrats, I was impressed by Senator Joe Biden whenever I saw him speak during the presidential campaign. Whether you’re a longtime Biden fan or have never seen him in person before, you should mark your calendar for Saturday, November 21. The vice-president is coming to Des Moines to headline the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner (exact time and location to be announced later).

I’ve posted the IDP’s news release on the event after the jump. Click here to sign up for ticket information.

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.

It seems like the one constant that can be depended on in this country anymore in good times or bad is the fact that working folks are working harder and harder and simply are not getting ahead. Even before the Republican recession last year wages have stagnated for decades and the gap between rich and poor has only widened as our middle-class continues to shrink. New numbers show that while incomes across the board have fallen, the recession has once again hit middle and lower class working Americans the hardest.  

This weekend, I went home to my hometown of Centerville for our big annual Pancake Day festival. Although you've probably never heard of it, and it probably didn't bring in as many guests as the Dave Matthews concert in Des Moines, it's still a pretty big event for the southern part of the state.

The big parade starts with a cannon blast at 1 o'clock sharp, every year. In addition to all the Pancake Day Queen contestants, the local celebrities and the business floats, the parade usually brings a few local politicians or political candidates down every election year. In 2004, when I was still in high school, I marched in the parade with Dave Franker (remember him?). In 2006, Pancake Day marked the first time I had seen Dave Loebsack in person.

This being an odd-numbered year, I wasn't expecting to see any political candidates beyond our statehouse representatives and whoever is running for mayor this year. I was surprised then, to see Bob Vander Plaats round the corner of the parade route, shaking hands.

We won’t know the full story on Iowa’s film tax credit for weeks, as investigators look into lax oversight and other problems at the Iowa Department of Economic Development. It may be months before we learn whether Iowa taxpayers will end up paying around $110 million or as much as $300 million in exchange for some temporary jobs in the film industry.

One thing is already clear, however: the original bill creating the film tax credit laid the ground for this costly mistake. Todd Dorman isn’t buying state legislators’ effort to pin all the blame on IDED, with good reason:

One common theme in this week’s legislative dodge-fest is that the Department of Economic Development pushed through rules governing the program on an “emergency” fast track in July 2007. Lawmakers insist that left them no chance to review the rules before they took effect, including allowing credits for the purchase of aircraft, vehicles, furnishings, hairstyling and makeup.

There’s one small problem with that argument: Much of what was in those rules was also spelled out in the bill they approved by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. The cars, the planes, the hair. All there.

You also have to wonder why lawmakers approved a tax credit program with the authority to hand out tens of millions of dollars but provided only enough money for a one-person office to administer it. A recipe for trouble.

And last spring, when legislators prudently decided to cap dollars flowing from the program, why did they delay screwing on that cap until July 1? In the meantime, a flood of credit applications exploded the program’s potential cost.

The film tax credit received little attention when it was created, probably because it was uncontroversial (approved 95-1 in the Iowa House and 48-2 in the Iowa Senate). Journalists covering the statehouse and political junkies like me tend to notice action and partisan warfare.

Unfortunately, a lot of bad laws glide through the process with little controversy. Some of them give the appearance of solving a problem without accomplishing anything. The sorry excuse for campaign finance reform the legislature approved unanimously this year comes to mind. So does Iowa’s 2002 law establishing residency restrictions on sex offenders. Every legislator but Ed Fallon voted for that bill, but such laws do nothing to protect children from predators, in the opinion of groups representing county attorneys, corrections officers, prosecutors, and advocates for missing and exploited children. (Legislators fixed some of the problems with that bill during the 2009 session.)

Sometimes consensus politics ends up constraining the rights of individuals. The 1998 Defense of Marriage Act sailed through the Iowa legislature with only Fallon voting no, but the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously held this year that “the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

During the 2009 session, the little-noticed House File 233 unanimously passed both the House and Senate. It changed the rules so that citizens have only ten days (as opposed to the 12 months previously allowed) to file a lawsuit challenging a school board’s decision on disposition of property. As a result, Iowans will in effect have no legal recourse against future decisions by school boards.

Let’s not forget the nursing home bill that Iowa legislators also approved unanimously this year. That bill eliminated fines for the most common causes of neglect in nursing homes. Advocates for the elderly warned that the bill would make it easier for nursing home operators to violate Iowa law.

Federal laws approved with huge bipartisan majorities can turn out to be unwise as well. Some are merely useless, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which failed to curb unfair practices by private health insurance providers.

Others are harmful. Banking deregulation laws (like this one) passed Congress with large majorities during the 1980s, contributing to the Savings and Loan crisis that eventually cost taxpayers more than $150 billion.

No one person could keep track of all the bills pending in Congress or even the Iowa legislature, but the film tax credit debacle should remind us all that the most significant bills aren’t always the ones that generate heated debate. By the same token, getting everyone to agree to do something doesn’t make it worth doing.

UPDATE: Nate Silver followed up here, comparing patterns in Strategic Vision poll findings to those from Quinnipac.

Strategic Vision released a number of Iowa polls during 2007, sampling Democratic and Republican would-be caucus-goers on the presidential candidates.

Did any Iowa journalist or political analyst receive cross-tabs or any details about the methodology from these polls? Does anyone remember talking to any Iowan who had been surveyed by Strategic Vision?

I’m asking because incredibly, polling experts are now questioning whether Strategic Vision has been conducting polls at all. More on that story is after the jump.  

Sunday evening marks the beginning of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Like Jews around the world, I’ve been reflecting on mistakes I made during the past year and how I can do better in the future. For those who attend services on Yom Kippur, I recommend reading those meditations at the beginning of the high holidays prayer book.

Congressman Steve King’s not the introspective type, judging from his recent interview with The Hill (hat tip to MyDD user Louisiana 1976):

THE HILL: What vote would you like to redo?

   KING: I don’t really go back and re-live that sort of thing. Some of the big votes that I’ve thought about, some of the jury’s still out. And at this point, maybe I’d answer that question another way, probably the singular vote that stands out that went against the grain, and it turns out to be the best vote that I cast, was my “no” vote to the $51.5 billion to [Hurricane] Katrina. That probably was my best vote. But as far as doing something different again, I don’t know.

So, well into his fourth term in Congress, King can’t think of a single vote he would cast differently. Not only that, when asked about any decision he might regret, King’s mind leaped to what he considers his “best vote.” A cartoon villain couldn’t have picked a more inappropriate vote to brag about.

Do you think King works hard to be offensive, or do these comments come to him with no effort?

This is an open thread for anything on your mind this weekend.  

The U.S. Constitution requires that the government conduct a census every ten years. Population counts determine federal funding for various programs, as well as the number of Congressional districts allocated to each state, so the public interest in conducting a thorough census is obvious.

The next census will take place in 2010, but some right-wing loudmouths and Republican politicians have unfortunately demonized the effort as an intrusive government plot. Over at Think Progress, Faiz Shakir recaps some of the paranoid chatter from Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) and Glenn Beck of Fox News. Shakir also cites radio host Neal Boortz, who told his listeners, “Most of the rest of the [Census] information is designed to help the government steal from you in order to pass off your property to the moochers. They’re looters.”

Not long ago I discussed my worries about the rhetoric of armed resistance coming from the political right, and I’ve been reflecting on this problem since I heard about census-taker Bill Sparkman’s murder. Sparkman was found naked and bound with “fed” written on his chest and his census ID taped to his neck. In rural Kentucky,

Sparkman’s gruesome death has ignited a debate over whether it was a byproduct of harsh anti-government rhetoric on talk shows, blogs and protests. Residents of impoverished Clay County say most people harbor no resentment for agents of the federal government, and they’re baffled by Sparkman’s apparent killing.

Sheriff Kevin Johnson, a native, said most residents feel a measure of gratitude to the federal government.

“We’ve been a poverty-stricken area pretty much all our lives,” he said. “The government’s taking care of 70 percent of people here, through Social Security, SSI, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid.”

None of those programs could function without the demographic data the Census Bureau provides.

If conservative politicians and opinion leaders keep stoking fears about the government using census data to steal from or perhaps even round up law-abiding citizens, I am concerned that mentally unstable individuals will commit further acts of violence against census-takers next year. Republicans should condemn the hatemongers and make clear that the census is not only permitted, but required under the Constitution.

A full six months after Senator Tom Harkin recommended Stephanie Rose and Nick Klinefeldt for the U.S. attorney positions in Iowa’s northern and southern districts, President Barack Obama sent Rose’s and Klinefeldt’s names to the Senate for confirmation. Radio Iowa posted the September 25 press release from the White House.

I don’t know when the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up these nominations. Some advocates have objected to Rose’s nomination because of civil liberties and due process violations in the wake of last year’s immigration raid in Postville. Senators should thoroughly explore Rose’s role in the Postville prosecutions during her confirmation hearing. Harkin’s office has defended Rose’s record and her work with the detainees from Postville.

Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan spoke confidently today about a “first-round draft pick” who is ready to run against Senator Chuck Grassley, Kay Henderson reported for Radio Iowa.

“I’m going to tell you here today that Chuck Grassley is going to be in for the race of his life.” […]

“You’re just going to have to wait to find out,” Kiernan said this morning during taping of this weekend’s “Iowa Press” program.  “We want to wait ’til, obviously, after Terry Branstad announced his candidacy for governor.”

Kiernan isn’t revealing the characteristics this phantom candidate may have either. “I’ll just wait for the announcement,” Kiernan said.  “You will be impressed.” […]

“I’m here to tell you today that it will be the toughest race that Chuck Grassley has faced since John Culver,” Kiernan said.

Grassley defeated Senator John Culver (Governor Chet Culver’s father) in the 1980 Reagan landslide.

Speaking to reporters after today’s taping, Kiernan said the big-name challenger is “100 percent committed” to this race.

Your guess is as good as mine. A retired politician? Christie Vilsack? A celebrity in a non-political field? Someone from the business world? (Retired Principal Financial Group CEO Barry Griswell has ruled out running, as has Fred Hubbell, the incoming interim director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development.)

Grassley’s approval rating has fallen this year, but it’ll take a lot to convince me that we can defeat him. He’s still got a strong brand name and 30 years of constituent service behind him.

The news keeps pouring in on the mismanagement of Iowa’s tax credit for film-making, which may turn out to be among the most expensive mistakes in our state’s history.

Lots of links are after the jump.

For months, White House officials and Senate leaders praised the “gang of six” negotiations toward a bipartisan deal on health care reform, even as other observers doubted the Republicans in that group were negotiating in good faith. At the beginning of the summer recess in August, Senator Jay Rockefeller (who was shut out of the deal-making) warned:

Changes to the bill have been frustrating, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) told reporters at a press conference, particularly given that the Republicans — Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine — are, in his opinion, just stalling for time.

“You just watch as the bill diminishes in its scope, in its coverage, in its ferocity to try to attack the problem. I don’t know where it will come out,” Rockefeller said. “My own personal view is that those three Republicans won’t be there to vote it out of committee when it comes right down to it, so that this all will have been a three-or-four-month delay game, which is exactly what the Republicans want.”

No Republicans stood with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus last week as he finally unveiled what David Waldman described as “a plan that amounts to capitulating to every Republican demand, and then adding a heaping pile of political suicide on top of it.” The bill is in markup this week, and CA Berkeley WV has been blogging the Senate Finance Committee meetings for Congress Matters (day one, day two and day three).

Where does ranking Finance Committee member Grassley stand after Baucus bent over backwards to keep negotiating with him all summer? After the jump I’ve posted the relevant portion of a transcript from Grassley’s September 24 telephone news conference with Iowa reporters. The short version is, he’s against the bill because:

1. The individual mandate to buy health insurance amounts to “[q]uite a steep tax for people that maybe don’t pay a tax.”

2. Democrats supposedly were “not willing to go far enough” on enforcement to make sure illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered.

3. Democrats supposedly “weren’t willing to go far enough to make sure that the subsidy through the tax credit was not used to finance abortions.”

4. You shouldn’t be “increasing taxes and cutting Medicare” when “we’re in depression.”

I told Iowa Republicans not to worry about Grassley voting for any health care reform bill. Senate Democrats should reject the concessions Baucus made to win GOP votes that are now off the table.

The Republican polling firm Rasmussen Reports surveyed 500 “likely voters” in Iowa on September 22 and came up with bad numbers for Governor Chet Culver. Former Governor Terry Branstad leads Culver by 54 percent to 34 percent, and Bob Vander Plaats leads Culver by 43 percent to 39 percent. Culver’s approval rating is 43 percent, with 53 percent of respondents disapproving of the job he is doing.

Topline results and favorability ratings are here. Culver was viewed very or somewhat favorably by 43 percent of respondents and viewed very or somewhat unfavorably by 50 percent. Branstad’s favorability was 64 percent, and his unfavorable numbers were just 29 percent. Vander Plaats was viewed favorably by 45 percent and unfavorably by 30 percent.

These numbers will encourage Branstad, who appears likely to seek his old job again. He has said he’ll decide by October, and I’ve heard rumors that Branstad will announce his candidacy very soon (September 28 according to one person, October 3 according to someone else). I believe that the numbers we see for Branstad this month will be his high water mark, since no one has campaigned against him for 15 years.

Vander Plaats will surely cite the Rasmussen poll as proof that he can beat Culver. The whole “draft Branstad” movement grew out of fears that Vander Plaats could not win a general election.

As a rule, Rasmussen polls tend to come in with somewhat better numbers for Republican candidates and worse numbers for Democrats. Go to Pollster.com and click on almost any national or state-level race to compare recent results from different pollsters.

The recent Selzer Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register found much better numbers for Culver (50 percent approve, 39 percent disapprove). Selzer polled 803 Iowans over a three-day period (3.5 percent margin of error), while Rasmussen polled 500 “likely voters” on a single day (4.5 percent margin of error). Selzer did not poll Culver against Branstad or any other Republican.

I am seeking further information about the likely voter screen Rasmussen used, as well as the proportion of Democrats, Republicans and no-party voters in the sample. I will update this post if I receive more details. If any Rasmussen premium subscriber is reading, feel free to post a comment here or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

The same Rasmussen poll shows Senator Chuck Grassley leading Democrat Bob Krause 56 percent to 30 percent. Chase Martyn looks at the trendlines and concludes that Grassley could become vulnerable next year. In my opinion, Grassley is still well outside the danger zone for an incumbent despite his falling approval numbers.

Click here for Rasmussen’s results on how Iowans view President Obama, the economy and health care reform proposals.

UPDATE: The commenters at Swing State Project trust Selzer a lot more than Rasmussen. One person pointed out that in late July, Rasmussen found Senator Barbara Boxer of California leading Republican Carly Fiorina by just four points (45-41), while a few weeks later Research 2000 found Boxer leading Fiorina 52-31. It appears that Rasmussen’s likely voter screen produces a sample skewed a bit toward Republicans.

It would have been helpful if the Des Moines Register’s recent poll had asked respondents about Culver and Branstad and Vander Plaats. Craig Robinson is wrong to imply that the Register might have asked those questions and decided to cover up the results. The Register published the full questionnaire from its recent poll. Some pollsters don’t think head to head matchups are useful this far out from an election.