State Representative Kerry Burt received a year of probation and a $625 fine after pleading guilty to drunk driving, the Des Moines Register reported on August 21. He will also be required to take a class for drunk drivers. Burt released a statement apologizing for his actions and promising never to let it happen again. I’ve posted that statement after the jump. It doesn’t sound like he’s planning to resign.
I would like Democrats to find a new candidate for House district 21 next year. The Register pointed out that State Senator Robert Dvorsky was re-elected in 2006 despite a drunk driving arrest earlier that year, but Dvorsky had spent nearly two decades in the Iowa legislature at that time and represents a safe Democratic district. Burt is in his first term and defeated a Republican incumbent by a narrow margin in 2008. He is also among several people being investigated for giving false addresses in order to evade tuition payments at the University of Northern Iowa’s Malcolm Price Laboratory School.
Neither Republican Stephen Burgmeier nor Democrat Curt Hanson has highlighted same-sex marriage rights during the campaign for the September 1 special election in Iowa House district 90. However, a group opposing marriage equality is funding an intense advertising campaign in the district.
Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent noticed that the “National Organization for Marriage has purchased $86,060 worth of television and radio ads” to help Burgmeier. That is a major ad buy for an Iowa legislative election. Martyn uploaded an independent expenditure report (pdf file) that the group filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, but that didn’t include information about the content or placement of the ads.
If you have seen or heard any advertising paid for by National Organization for Marriage, please post a comment in this thread or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com with as much detail as possible about the message. How many different versions of the ads are running? Do the commercials mention any issues besides overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage? Do they mainly support Burgmeier, who is under attack from a right-wing candidate? Or do they also attack Hanson, and if so, using what kind of language?
Most of the Iowans in Congress have health care town-hall meetings scheduled during the remainder of the summer recess. Some of these have been moved to larger venues because of high expected turnout. It’s important for supporters of strong health care reform not to let the loudest voices on the other side drown out debate. Senator Chuck Grassley has cited town-hall protesters as a reason for scaling back reform efforts.
If you live in the first, second or third districts, it’s especially important for you to make your voice heard. Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell have all signed on to support Health Care for America Now’s core principles for health care reform. They all belong to the House Populist Caucus, which stands for six key issues, including “Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans.”
We have a bridge that needs repair in our community. It would take about $350,000. I am happy to keep driving a different road to avoid it if we all get access to affordable health care instead. Any Democrat who trades his or her vote to keep the public option in return for a bridge, a day care center, or a highway expansion, should be publicly embarrassed. […]
While you are calling congressional public option supporters to thank them, tell them you don’t want any bridges if it means you don’t get affordable access to health care. You could also mention that if they vote for a bill without the public option, you will want to know what they got from the White House in return.
If you attend any health-care town-halls, please consider posting a diary here about your experience, like hei and iowademocrat did last week.
Final note: it would be great for some prominent Iowan to steal this idea from Terry McAuliffe and offer to host a fundraiser for the first Iowa representative in Congress who pledges not to vote for any health care bill without a public option.
to formally support the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision allowing gay marriage, and to formally oppose any constitutional amendment that would overturn the decision.
The commission’s seven members, appointed by the governor to staggered terms, include four Democrats (Alicia Claypool of West Des Moines, Debbie Gitchell of Ames, Constance Gronstal of Council Bluffs and Nancy Witt of Reinbeck), two Republicans (Rich Eychaner of Des Moines and Rick Morain of Jefferson) and one independent (Timothy Tutt of Des Moines). It can’t be easy to be a marriage equality supporter in today’s Republican Party of Iowa. The Des Moines Register quoted a strong statement from Morain:
“My personal feeling is that if that kind of amendment [banning same-sex marriage] were adopted, it would clash with Article 1 of the constitution, which is the Iowa Bill of Rights.”
Morain said: “To me, it would not be consistent with Iowa’s long-standing tradition of equality and the right to happiness to pass that amendment.”
While other conservatives warn against a “government takeover” of health care, Vander Plaats isn’t just against a new public health insurance plan, he wants to protect Iowans from the tyranny of federal-run Medicare and Medicaid.
With the economic recession continuing to drag down tax revenues, the 2010 budget that the Iowa Legislature approved in April is likely to require significant adjustments.
In June the Legislative Council agreed to cut more than 10 percent from the Legislature’s budget in 2010. The cost-saving measures “include a pay freeze for all legislative employees, reducing travel budgets, and cutting back next year’s legislative session by 10 days.”
A State Government Reorganization Commission will look for other ways to cut spending next year. It will be interesting to compare that commission’s proposals with the kind of cuts Iowa Republicans have been advocating. During the last legislative session, Republicans called for $300 million in spending cuts, but I have been unable to find a link to a document with details about that proposal. (Note: I’ll have more to say in a future post about the state budget reforms Iowa Republicans proposed yesterday.)
After the jump I’ve posted some links and analysis related to the budget constraints facing Iowa and just about every other state right now.
I understand that fear of the unknown is often stronger than fear of the known, but even so I’m struck by how many people argue against a potential public health insurance option while ignoring huge problems with our current system.
This year Republican leaders in the legislature and the state party apparatus have talked much more about economic and fiscal issues than about the religious right’s agenda. Even in the weeks following the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling, the state party said little about gay marriage.
However, some social conservatives don’t appreciate being told to keep their mouths shut while doing heavy lifting for Republicans. One of them is Dan Cesar, who ran in House district 90 last year on the Fourth of July ticket when Republicans declined to field a candidate against incumbent John Whitaker. Cesar is running in the special election too and is bashing Burgmeier:
“[Burgmeier] has avoided the words pro-life in everything he says. He’s avoided the fact that he’s a Catholic and belongs to a faith community. I take exception to that. His handlers are telling him to do that.” […]
“The [Republican] party told me they don’t want to focus on pro-life,” he said. “So I either run again as a third party or shut up. Shut up and let a coward run as a Democrat and someone I consider a sellout run as a Republican. I stood up and said I will run.”
The Iowa GOP will likely repeat the district 90 playbook across the state next year, especially if Burgmeier wins on September 1. Social conservatives won’t appreciate being marginalized. If Democratic candidate Curt Hanson prevails in district 90, the religious right-wingers will probably be even more angry, claiming that social issues could have won the day.
This argument is sure to continue during the Republican gubernatorial primary, which will come down to Bob Vander Plaats against someone backed by the business wing (Terry Branstad, Chris Rants or Christian Fong). Vander Plaats believes the GOP can win by embracing “core principles” and “bold-color conservatism that inspires faith, family and freedom.”
Meanwhile, even the Republicans who are actively running for governor are struggling to raise money and support now that former Governor Terry Branstad has said he’s seriously thinking about running again. Branstad told a Republican gathering last week that he will decide by October whether to challenge Governor Chet Culver.
Post any comments about the governor’s race or the Republican Party in this thread.
Fed up with the conservadem approach to slowly killing healthcare reform, a coaltion of Unions have taken their gloves off and launched radio ads in Montana, Iowa, North Dakota, and Arkansas asking key Senators from those states What Side Are You On?
I wasn’t living in Iowa during the 1990s, so I had never heard about this episode before reading today’s New York Times:
Hopes for co-ops may also be tempered by the experience of Iowa, home to Senator Charles E. Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, which is trying to hash out a bipartisan health care proposal.
In the 1990s, Iowa adopted a law to encourage the development of health care co-ops. One was created, and it died within two years. Although the law is still on the books, the state does not have a co-op now, said Susan E. Voss, the Iowa insurance commissioner.
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield collects about 70 percent of the premiums paid in the private insurance market in Iowa and South Dakota.
To become established, a new market entrant would have to offer lower prices or better services, Ms. Voss said, adding: “Wellmark has a huge advantage. They already have contracts with practically every doctor in the state.”
I am shocked, shocked to learn that senators hauling in huge money from the insurance industry want to scuttle plans for a public health insurance option in favor of cooperatives that would not provide any meaningful competition in the marketplace.
For a guy who wrote a short book’s worth of blog posts as “The Armchair Economist,” Republican gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong has been saying some boneheaded things about the state budget lately.
Senator Jay Rockefeller speculated two weeks ago that the Republicans working with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus on a health care bill were only trying to delay reform and diminish the bill as much as possible before voting against it. On Monday, “gang of six” member Senator Chuck Grassley went on MSNBC and in effect admitted Rockefeller was right:
“I am negotiating for Republicans,” he said. “If I can’t negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I’m not a good negotiator.”
When NBC’s Chuck Todd, in a follow-up question on the show, asked the Iowa Republican if he’d vote against what Grassley might consider to be a “good deal” — i.e., gets everything he asks for from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D) — Grassley replied, “It isn’t a good deal if I can’t sell my product to more Republicans.”
Up to now, Baucus and the White House could use Grassley as cover for giving away the store to corporate interests. (Republicans conveniently insist on the same things the drug and insurance lobbies want in or out of the bill.) But if Grassley won’t even commit to voting for a bill that contains everything he wants, what is the point of continuing this charade?
“…If (Democrats) do go ahead (on their own), this is what I fear. They get done what they want, they’re going to change our health care system forever. You understand I feel a little bit like the boy sticking his finger in the dike, trying to stop the ocean from coming in…If I had not been at the table, there would have been a bill through the (Senate Finance) Committee the week of June 22 and it would have been through the senate by now because there’s 60 Democrats so I think that I have, by sticking my finger in the dike, I’ve had an opportunity to give the grassroots of America an opportunity to speak up as you’re seeing every day on television and I think that’s a good thing.”
Two Democratic former state legislators, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause, are working on 2010 Senate bids to face Republican deather Chuck “pull the plug on grandma” Grassley. Despite Grassley’s increasingly Looney Tunes demeanor, he does have just over $3.8 million in the bank as of the end of June.
I’m told by mostly reliable sources there is a well-known mystery candidate who’s about 75 percent ready to join the race. The mystery candidate supposedly has name recognition and money.
I don’t publish enough linkfests at Bleeding Heartland. Here are a few pieces that any Democrat should read before deciding to accept a health care reform compromise without a strong public option. The first three are personal stories.
A cardiologist recommended a nuclear stress test for this middle-aged man with a family history of fatal heart attacks. The scheduled test was canceled after the patient’s insurance company refused to cover it. Who’s getting between patients and their doctors again?
AdmiralNaismith explains how his wife’s embolism left his family “drowning in medical bills, despite insurance.”
Downtowner explains “How I lost my health insurance at the hairstylist’s” and how medical checks she needs are unaffordable now that she is uninsured.
Ian Welsh discusses the economic and political consequences of passing an individual mandate to buy health insurance with no public option. Spoiler alert: they’re not good unless you think “a regressive tax which will rise faster than wages or inflation” is a political winner.
Bruh3 explains the crucial flaw in President Obama’s negotiating strategy on health care. No one believes he will walk away from the table, no matter how bad a bill Congress sends him.
UPDATE: Some White House officials told Marc Ambinder that Sebelius misspoke, or the media misinterpreted her remarks. I would prefer a clear statement from the president.
Sebelius said the White House would be open to co-ops instead of a government-run public option, a sign Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory on the must-win showdown.
“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” she said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition.”
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said co-ops might be a politically acceptable alternative as “a step away from the government takeover of the health care system” that the GOP has assailed.
Last Wednesday, I attended a health care forum in Iowa hosted by Senator Tom Harkin. Following it, I wrote a diary, “Now I understand why war happens (a health care forum story).” In it, I asked the question, how can you defeat the bullies who are overrunning most of these meetings?
The problem in dealing with the teabaggers, deathers, birthers, racists, anarchists and radical libertarians who are overrunning health care forums nationwide is simple to describe.
They. Don't. Listen. Ever.
So, you can't really talk to them. When they have stacked the room, the intimidation is palpable. That's how they win.
I couldn't for the life of me think of how to beat these people, short of overpowering them somehow – hence the title of the diary. But, even as I wrote it, I knew that overpowering them just feeds into their fear and paranoia, and realistically, it's impossible anyway.
Today, after a little sleep and some reflection, I realized that the effect of the teabaggers' aggressive intimidation made me stupid for about eight hours. Anger is an amnesic agent. It makes you forget what you know. I was angry, depressed, agitated, and clueless all at once.
Two and a half weeks before the September 1 special election in Iowa House district 90, Republican Stephen Burgmeier’s campaign launched its first television commercial:
The producers fit quite a few misleading statements into one 30-second ad. The visual suggests Iowa has taken on “a billion dollar debt,” and the voice-over emphasizes the word “billion,” even though the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding initiative was for $830 million.
The commercial accuses “Governor Culver and his allies” of borrowing “almost a BILLION dollars to pay their bills.” However, the I-JOBS program was created to fund infrastructure projects and has nothing to do with meeting state government’s ongoing spending obligations. (Click here for a breakdown of how the money will be spent.)
During this recession, several other states have been forced to borrow money to pay their bills, but Iowa is borrowing for capital investments. Credit analysts and national institutional investors understand the difference, even if Iowa Republicans don’t. That’s why “investor enthusiasm and high market demand” drove down the interest rate on the I-JOBS bonds.
Next, Burgmeier’s ad shows a man saying, “That’s money taxpayers are on the hook for,” implying that taxes will go up to repay the debt. In fact, existing gaming revenues will provide the approximately $43.2 million in annual payments on the bonds.
The ad begins with a voice-over asserting that “red ink is rising in Des Moines” and later shows a woman saying, “Stop the red ink.” Those statements, along with the cartoon of red ink drowning Culver and the capitol, wrongly suggest that the infrastructure borrowing is deficit spending.
The second part of the ad promises that Burgmeier will vote for a new budget law “to make it harder to waste tax dollars.” I’d like more details about how such a law would work, and I’d also like Burgmeier to specify which of these investments he considers wasteful.
The ad promises Burgmeier will “serve as a check and balance to Governor Culver’s runaway spending” and closes by saying Burgmeier will bring “balance and spending restraint back to our government.” Iowa Republicans may believe Culver is very unpopular in district 90, or they may have decided to run against him in order to rile up their base. It’s notable that the ad never uses the word “Republican” and doesn’t identify the candidate’s political party. I guess the outside interest groups running the Burgmeier campaign don’t have much confidence in the Republican brand to carry the day.
The Iowa GOP didn’t announce the size of the ad buy, which networks would run the ad or which programs have been targeted. If you live in the viewing area for this district, let us know whether you’ve seen the ad, and if so during which television shows. If you prefer not to post a comment here, you can send me a confidential e-mail at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. Please also report on any radio ads you’ve heard.
I’m curious to see whether this will be Burgmeier’s only television commercial or if his campaign will mention other issues, including same-sex marriage, in later ads.
Having spent no time in this district lately, I have no idea whether Burgmeier or Democrat Curt Hanson has an edge. Political scientists will tell you that as a general rule, the party out of power does well in low-turnout by-elections and special elections. Both Democrats and Republicans are working hard to get out the vote in district 90. State GOP Chairman Matt Strawn and some other Republicans view this race as a must-win.
