(UPDATE: Jill Richardson’s sources differ on whether these appointments are imminent.)

I received a disturbing action alert today from Food Democracy Now about who may oversee food safety regulations in the new administration. (Note: I got the action alert via e-mail, and it hasn’t been posted yet at the Food Democracy Now website. The link above is to the organization’s main page.)

Excerpt:

There’s a possibility that former Monsanto executive Michael Taylor and irradiation proponent Dr. Michael Osterholm will be named to top food safety spots in the new Administration. […]

1. Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive, whose career literally fits the definition of the revolving door between government, lobbying and corporate interests. Before serving on the Obama ag transition team, Taylor made a name for himself rotating in and out of law firms, Monsanto, the USDA and FDA. While at the FDA he helped write the rules to allow rBGH into the American food system and our children’s milk.

Now we’ve learned that Taylor may be in line to run an office in the White House on food safety!

2.  On Monday, Secretary Vilsack is set to announce the appointment of Dr. Michael Osterholm, a food safety expert, to lead the Food Safety agency at the USDA. According to Food  & Water Watch, Osterholm has been “a zealot in promoting th[e] controversial technology (of irradiation) as the panacea to contaminated food.”

Irradiation allows food processors to nuke disease from contaminated food at the end of the production line, while ignoring the root problems that create unsafe food.

For Osterholm, the recent peanut butter fiasco apparently was just another example of how irradiation could save the day. “Clearly it’s a problem where the raw peanut butter or paste is consumed and not cooked,” Osterholm said.

Food Democracy Now wants people to e-mail Vilsack immediately, asking him to block these appointments. The action alert included a sample e-mail, which I’ve posted after the jump, but it’s always better to write this kind of letter in your own words.

You may recall that in November, the Organic Consumers Association came out strongly against Vilsack for secretary of agriculture, largely because of his connections to Monsanto and other biotech companies. But it’s worth noting that President Obama put Michael Taylor on his transition team before he chose Vilsack to run the USDA. If Taylor does end up running a White House food safety office, don’t pin that mistake on Vilsack.  

Rep. Leonard Boswell is pushing for a feasibility study of Amtrak service from Chicago through Iowa to Omaha.

Iowa's Third District Congressman Leonard Boswell has asked that AMTRAK study the feasibility of extending a proposed Chicago to the Quad Cities passenger train not only to Iowa City and Des Moines, but also on west to Council Bluffs and Omaha. This is the first time that AMTRAK has been asked by a government official to consider extending service beyond Des Moines. AMTRAK, at the request of the Iowa Department of Transportation, is looking at the feasibility of a Des Moines to the Quad Cities and Chicago train. […]

If passenger train services returns in Iowa between the Quad Cities and Council Bluffs-Omaha, it would use the former Rock Island line. Cities along the route from the Mississippi River to the Missouri River include Davenport, Iowa City, Grinnell, Newton, Des Moines, and Atlantic.

I am definitely on board with this idea.

Governor Chet Culver made two appointments to the Iowa Utilities Board this week. He named Rob Berntsen as the IUB’s new chairman, replacing John Norris. Norris stepped down from the IUB in order to serve as chief of staff for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Culver also reappointed Krista Tanner as one of the IUB’s three members. Culver appointed her in 2007 to serve out the remainder of someone else’s IUB term, which expires at the end of April. Now she will serve out the remainder of Norris’s term, which ends in April 2011.

The governor named Berntsen for the full six-year term that begins on May 1 and expires in 2015. (The third IUB member, Darrell Hanson was appointed by Culver in 2007 for a term that expires in 2013.)

Join me after the jump for more background on the new IUB chairman, along with some speculation about what can we expect from the board.  

President Barack Obama held a summit on health care yesterday with about 150 politicians and experts in the field. This morning the White House followed up by announcing plans to hold regional forums on health care in five states, including Iowa. From the press release:

The Regional White House Forums on Health Care Reform will be hosted by the states’ Governors and will include participants ranging from doctors to patients to providers to policy experts.  They will be open conversations with everyday Americans, local, state and federal elected officials – both Democrat and Republican — and senior Obama administration officials.  The events will begin with a video recorded by the President, a summary of the findings from the Health Care Community Discussions that took place in December, and an overview of the discussion that took place at the White House Forum on Health Reform.

The meetings in California, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and Vermont will take place in March and early April.  Further logistical information about the forums is forthcoming.

Presumably Iowa was chosen because both of our senators will play an important role in drafting health care legislation. Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Tom Harkin will be in charge of drafting the parts of the bill concerning disease prevention and public health.

Ezra Klein posted about an exchange between Obama and Grassley at the White House yesterday:

“Max Baucus and I have a pretty good record of working out bipartisan things,” said Grassley. “I think only two bills in eight years that haven’t been bipartisan.” (One of them, however, was the S-CHIP bill, and another was Medicare payment reform, so their record on health care is more contentious). Grassley then moved onto a more relevant sore spot: The public insurance option. “The only thing,” he pleaded, “that I would throw out for your consideration — and please don’t respond to this now, because I’m asking you just to think about it — there’s a lot of us that feel that the public option that the government is an unfair competitor and that we’re going to get an awful lot of crowd out, and we have to keep what we have now strong, and make it stronger.”

The question was no surprise: In recent Finance hearings, Grassley has clearly signaled his anxiety on this issue. What was a surprise was that Obama rejected Grassley’s plea to think it over and instead replied on the spot with a strong articulation of the case for a public plan. “The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices, and it helps give — keep the private sector honest, because there’s some competition out there. That’s been the thinking.”

“I recognize, though, the fear that if a public option is run through Washington, and there are incentives to try to tamp down costs and — or at least what shows up on the books, and you’ve got the ability in Washington, apparently, to print money — that private insurance plans might end up feeling overwhelmed. So I recognize that there’s that concern. I think it’s a serious one and a real one. And we’ll make sure that it gets addressed.”

I love it when conservatives like Grassley drop the free-market-warrior act. David Sirota asks the right question: if what we have works so well, why are “Republicans insisting that Americans would overwhelmingly opt to be covered by a government-run health care program, if given the choice?”

Also, why are there 48 million Americans without health insurance, with 14,000 Americans losing their health insurance every day lately? Why do the uninsured have less access to basic care and even organ transplants?

And why do so many people who do have health insurance face financial ruin following a medical crisis?

There must be a public health insurance option for people too young to qualify for Medicare and not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Someone close to my family just got laid off this week and was diagnosed with diabetes within the last few months. What are his chances of finding good private health insurance coverage under the current system?

This thread is for any thoughts about the substance or the politics of health care reform. I’ll post more details about the upcoming White House regional forum when they become available.

The right-wing noise machine is in high gear regarding the $7.7 billion earmarked for various projects in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus spending bill.

Where was the outrage when the Defense Department inspector general determined last year that the DOD can’t account for $7.8 billion spent in Iraq?

Why didn’t they cheer on President Barack Obama when he moved this week to reduce the billions wasted on no-bid and fraudulent government contracts?

Senator Tom Harkin is under fire for getting so many earmarks in the omnibus bill (though Chuck Grassley also helped secure a substantial number of earmarks). I don’t agree with everything Harkin said yesterday about the earmarks, but he was right on target here:

What needs more attention, according to Harkin, are no-bid contracts done by federal agencies.

“I had a hearing a year ago on the Department of Labor and there were — I forget the exact figure – but several hundred million dollars that had gone out under Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao on no-bid contracts,” he said.

When Harkin directed a federal oversight agency to look into the contracts, it was discovered that the contractors had not done what they were hired to do and, according to Harkin, “didn’t really do anything. …

“At least we are transparent,” he said. “You can see where it is going. But on a lot of these non-bid contracts that go through the executive branch, no one knows what they are doing. We have no transparency there.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in just one department of the executive branch–but conservatives won’t get upset about that. Nor will they express outrage upon learning that George Bush’s political appointees awarded pricey USDA consulting contracts that did nothing for the Department of Agriculture.

I’ve got another post coming later about the infamous Harkin earmark for studying pig odor. I want to know where the angry Republicans were last year when progressives and environmentalists were trying to persuade the Iowa legislature not to pass the deeply flawed odor-study bill (see here, here or here).

Jill Richardson has an action alert up at La Vida Locavore regarding new rules for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Environmental Quality Initiatives Program (EQIP). She lays out the problem with the status quo:

A report (Industrial Livestock at the Taxpayer Trough by Elanor Starmer and Timothy A. Wise, Dec 2008) found that nationally, factory hog farms comprise 10.7% of all hog operations – but get 37% of all of the EQIP contracts. Factory farm dairies make up 3.9% of all dairy farms – but they get 54% of EQIP contracts. All in all, between 2003 and 2007, 1000 factory hog and dairy farms ate up $35 million in EQIP conservation funding.

This happened at the expense of smaller farms that COULD HAVE gotten the money. Mid-sized hog farms make up 15% of hog operations but got 5.4% of EQIP contracts. Mid-sized dairy farms make up 13% of dairies – and got 7% of contracts.

This report by the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that confined animal feeding operations “have received $100 million in annual pollution prevention payments in recent years” through EQIP.

Do you think CAFOs should be able to hog taxpayer dollars intended for conservation programs? Neither do I. More important, neither does Congress:

USDA was directed by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill to make EQIP more inclusive of organic agriculture practices – including implementing a new provision that assists farmers converting to organic farming systems and rewarding the conservation benefits of organic farming. However, USDA fell far short of meeting this directive in their [Interim Final Rule for EQIP].

We have until March 16 to submit public comments urging the USDA to make EQIP more organic-friendly, as Congress stipulated last year. There is a clear public interest in helping more farmers meet the growing demand for organic food. As a side benefit, directing more EQIP funds to organic farms would be a step toward making CAFOs pay for the harm they cause.

For details on how to submit your comments on this issue, click here or here.

Here’s some good news for the environment and public health:  

Interstate Power and Light on Thursday canceled plans for a $1.8 billion coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown, citing the economy and uncertainty over state regulations. […]  

“At the end of the day it’s economic condition, uncertainly regarding future regulatory and legislative treatment of environmental issues, meaning greenhouses gases,” said spokesman Ryan Steensland.

Other factors were terms placed on the power plant by the Iowa Utilities Board, including a 10.1 return on equity for investors. “It would have made it very challenging to attract the capital necessary to build these types of investments. The cost and the return laid out by the board just did not wet the appetite of the investment community to move forward with this project,” Steensland said.

Economic concerns prompted a different company to pull the plug on a proposed coal-fired power plant near Waterloo earlier this year.

Thanks to all the environmental and public-health advocates who have worked so hard for years to defeat both coal plants, including the Sierra Club, Plains Justice, the Iowa Environmental Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Community Energy Solutions, the Iowa Renewable Energy Association and Iowa Interfaith Power and Light.  

I am still annoyed that the Iowa Utilities Board approved an application to build the Marshalltown plant last spring, but at least the IUB’s recent ratemaking decision helped doom the project.

Please disregard my action alert regarding public comments on the DNR’s draft air quality permit for the Marshalltown plant.

UPDATE: At Century of the Common Iowan, noneed4thneed points out that the coal plant would have created 85 permanent jobs as well as providing a lot of temporary jobs during its construction. I sympathize with people who are upset about losing those jobs. However, I do not support making a 50-year investment in the wrong direction on energy production, which would also result in more respiratory illness, mercury pollution and higher utility bills for thousands of Iowans, all for the sake of some jobs in the Marshalltown area.  

During the caucus campaign, one of my pet peeves was the tendency for Iowa voters to complain about all those phone calls and knocks on the door. When volunteers care enough about the direction of this country to advocate for their candidates, and all they are trying to do is engage you politically, the least you can do is be courteous. People in many other states would love to have as much influence over the presidential nominating process as Iowans have.

Similarly, politicians who sought out the opportunity to represent Iowans in the state legislature should not complain when engaged citizens contact them for a cause they believe in.

The Iowa legislature’s “funnel deadline” is approaching, and with very few exceptions, bills that have not been voted out of a committee will be dead within a few days. So, many Iowans are calling or e-mailing legislators regarding this or that bill.

I have friends who are passionate about a particular bill and are mobilizing a lot of people in favor of it. They don’t have money to hire a lobbyist or run advertisements. (Slight correction: Although my friends who are getting involved don’t have spare cash for lobbying or political donations, an organization has hired a lobbyist to help pass this bill.) It’s not a high-profile issue getting a lot of media attention. All these people have is the ability to ask friends to write legislators directly. They’ve been sending out contact information for the people on the relevant committee. They feel they need a lot of grassroots support to counteract the efforts of at least one well-funded interest group that is actively opposing the bill.

I received an urgent message from an acquaintance saying that no one should write to one particular legislator. This person responded to a message by saying he or she supports the bill but will change his or her mind if he or she continues to receive numerous messages about it.

Threatening to change your vote on a good bill because you are hearing from a lot of its supporters is immature and unprofessional. Show some understanding, legislators. A bunch of ordinary people are doing their best to get involved in a positive way. The funnel deadline will pass soon, and you will stop getting so many e-mails.

If you don’t like hearing from citizens about pending bills during a few busy weeks out of the year, may I suggest that you not run for re-election. Plenty of other people would be happy to take your place at the statehouse.

UPDATE: Someone who works at the statehouse suggested to me that the offensive e-mail my acquaintance received may have been written by a clerk without the legislator’s knowledge. Many clerks routinely respond to e-mail correspondence on behalf of the Iowa House representative they work for. My point still stands–representatives should be respectful in their communication with engaged citizens.

Good for him:

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says he killed about half a million dollars worth of consulting contracts approved by Bush administration political appointees near the end of President Bush’s term.

“The career folks who watched this process unfold in the last waning days of the last administration were very concerned about the process-the connections and relationships between people receiving this half a million dollar contract and what they intended to do with the resource which the career folks felt was unnecessary and inappropriate,” Vilsack said during a guest appearance at the daily White House press briefing. “They made a very strong and powerful case to me that the process was not followed as it should have been.”

Vilsack did not explain precisely what consulting the contract was to involve, but he said it seemed unnecessary.

“I didn’t see any value to USDA from it. I will tell you it was rather startling to see that a substantial amount of money had already been spent on foreign travel under circumstances we did not think was appropriate,” the secretary said.

More details are at the Politico. Thanks to my fellow Iowa blogger Chris Woods for bringing the story to my attention.

This news is obviously related to President Barack Obama’s directive to all the heads of government agencies to restrict no-bid contracts and crack down on wasteful contracts.

(cross-posted at La Vida Locavore, which you really should be reading)

Ever notice how Republicans love to complain about “wasteful government spending” but never do anything about it when they’re in power?

Less than 100 days into his new job, President Barack Obama is taking a big step in the right direction:

Obama today issued a memorandum to the heads of all the executive departments agencies directing them to restrict no-bid contracts; to rein in outsourcing of “inherently governmental activities”; and to, if necessary, cancel wasteful contracts outright. The crucial paragraph, even if it’s written in bureaucratese, particularly calls out the Defense Department […]

Clearly, this has applications far beyond the Pentagon. But the list of big-ticket defense items that have experienced huge cost overruns is a long one. Future Combat Systems in the Army; the Littoral Combat Ship in the Navy; the Joint Strike Fighter in the Air Force – all of these programs, near and dear to the services, have run massively over budget. If I was a lobbyist for Lockheed or Boeing, I’d be dialing my contacts in the Pentagon and the Hill to figure out what the prospective damage to my company was. And then I’d come up with a strategy to fight this forthcoming Office of Management and Budget review.

Obama went further in remarks at the White House, calling it a “false choice” to say that protecting the country requires acquiescence to Pentagon waste. “In this time of great challenges,” he said, “I recognize the real choice between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are designed to make a defense contractor rich.” He also lent support to Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and former presidential rival John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) legislation to create new procurement oversight positions at the Pentagon. “The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over,” Obama said.

Music to my ears: no more blank checks for crooked defense contractors.

The White House estimates that changing the way the government does business will save about $40 billion a year.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the total cost of approximately 11,610 earmarks in fiscal year 2008 was $17.2 billion. In fiscal year 2007, earmarks cost American taxpayers an estimated $13.2 billion. Republicans howl about earmarks (when they’re not busy getting them for their own constituents), but will they get behind Obama’s new effort to reduce huge cost overruns and no-bid contracts?

Obama could save even more money by cutting obsolete Cold War-era weapons systems, but I don’t expect him to take on that battle anytime soon.

Improving energy efficiency is the fastest way to meet our baseload needs for electricity while saving consumers and businesses money and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Stepping up our efforts on energy efficiency should be a no-brainer, but some utilities feel otherwise and aren’t shy about letting state legislators know.

I received this action alert from Plains Justice today:

Iowa clean energy advocates, your help is urgently needed. Two good pieces of legislation that would lower your energy bills and decrease our reliance on dirty energy are stalled in the statehouse. Unless legislators hear from you now, this money-saving legislation will die before the full House and Senate can vote on it.

House Study Bill 150 and Senate Study Bill 1191 would save you money by requiring Iowa electric and natural gas utilities to invest in strong energy efficiency programs, the cheapest and cleanest way to meet our energy needs. According to current filings before the Iowa Utilities Board, energy efficiency costs only 3 cents per kilowatt hour, while new coal generation can cost more than three times as much. Some current studies put the cost of power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour.

Energy efficiency is common sense, but some utility companies don’t want to bother. They can put more of your hard-earned dollars in their pockets if they build new coal plants and new nuclear plants instead.  Call these legislators today and ask them to move the bills forward!

Senator Mike Gronstal (SSB 1191)    mike.gronstal@legis.state.ia.us           (515) 281-4610

Rep. Pat Murphy (HSB 150)              Pat.Murphy@legis.state.ia.us             (563) 582-5922

Governor Chet Culver                        (515) 281-5211 (Please ask the Governor to tell the committee members to move the bills forward.)

Senator Jerry Behn (SSB 1191)          jerry.behn@legis.state.ia.us                (515) 432-7327

Senator Tom Hancock (SSB 1191)     tom.hancock@legis.state.ia.us            (563) 876-3219

Senator Tom Rielly (SSB 1191)         tom.rielly@legis.state.ia.us                 (641) 673-5878

Rep. Nathan Reichert (HSB 150)       Nathan.Reichert@legis.state.ia.us      (515) 281-3221

Rep. Donovan Olson (HSB 150)        Donovan.Olson@legis.state.ia.us       (515) 432-8163

Rep. Chuck Soderberg (HSB 150)     Chuck.Soderberg@legis.state.ia.us    (712) 546-6136

Rep. Nick Wagner (HSB 150)            nick.wagner@legis.state.ia.us             (515) 281-3221

The full text of HSB 150 is available at http://tinyurl.com/Iowa-HSB-150.

The full text of SSB 1191 is available at http://tinyurl.com/Iowa-SSB-1191.

Thank you for helping Iowans save money on our energy bills!

If you live in the districts of any of the above legislators, definitely call. Phone calls are harder to ignore than e-mails. However, many legislators don’t routinely return calls to Iowans who don’t live in their districts. So you might want to e-mail the people on the above list if you are not one of their constituents.

Today is the last day to submit public comments to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources concerning draft water quality rules (“Antidegradation rules”).

Background information and talking points can be found on the websites of Sierra Club Iowa or the Iowa Environmental Council. Submit your comments to Adam Schnieders, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, 502 East 9th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0034, fax (515) 281-8895 or by E-mail to adam.schnieders@dnr.iowa.gov. Contact Adam Schnieders at (515) 281-7409 with questions.

While you’re on the Sierra Club Iowa page, look on the left-hand side for talking points about the draft air quality permit for the proposed coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown. As I wrote in this post, there are some big problems with the permit, and it’s important for as many Iowans to weigh in as possible with public comments. The DNR recently extended the comment period for that air quality permit until May 18, but it’s not too early to send in your letter.

Last week Blog for Iowa published an excellent letter on the draft permit by Paul Deaton, who chairs the Johnson County Board of Health. Read his letter as well as the Sierra Club talking points for some ideas, but remember to use your own words when writing to the DNR.

Both Governor Chet Culver and Secretary of State Mike Mauro have now come out against a bill that would award Iowa’s electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Their opposition in effect kills any chance of the bill advancing. Although it has been voted out of committee in the Iowa Senate, it may never come to a floor vote there or a committee vote in the Iowa House.

I don’t know what so many people have against one person, one vote for president, just like we have for every other elected office. I also take issue with this part of Culver’s statement:

As the last three elections have shown, Iowa is now a battleground state, and, as such, the issues of Iowans are heard by the candidates of both parties. If we require our electoral college votes to be cast to the winner of the national popular vote, we lose our status as a battleground state and the opportunity to ensure that the ideas that are important on Iowa’s Main Streets remain important on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

If the governor wants to buy into Republican propaganda about this bill, fine. But let’s not pretend Iowa is bound to be a swing state forever. Oregon was a battleground state for a few cycles, but John McCain didn’t seriously compete for it this year. West Virginia was a battleground state in 2000, but hopeless territory for Democrats in 2004 and 2008.

Democratic gains in voter registration could make this purple state blue if Culver and the statehouse Democrats give us a solid record of achievements to run on in 2010. If that happens, don’t count on Iowa’s six electoral votes being up for grabs during the 2012 general election.

I am also unconvinced that the electoral college ensures presidential candidates pay attention to small states. When was the last time a presidential candidate spent time in uncompetitive small states like the Dakotas, Montana, or Vermont?

John Deeth is right:

# The person with the most votes should win.

# It would be better if the Constitution actually said so.

# But National Popular Vote is a nice stopgap.

# If big states want National Popular Vote, it will pass without Iowa.

# The caucuses, not the electoral votes, are what makes Iowa important.

And about those caucuses: we won’t have competitive caucuses on the Democratic side in 2012, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some major Republican presidential candidates skip Iowa. It didn’t stop McCain from winning the nomination last year.

The White House released detailed information today on the $28 billion the stimulus bill directs toward highway construction. According to a press release (sorry, no link), the highway spending will “lead to 150,000 jobs saved or created by the end of 2010.” An estimated 95,000 jobs would come from the “direct impact of building new roads and fixing old ones,” while 55,000 jobs would come from “the economic activity generated when these new workers spend more than they would have otherwise.”

It is also worth noting that jobs in highway construction tend to pay better than average. The typical, or median hourly wage for all jobs in the economy was $15.10 in 2007 according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But for workers in the highway industry, the typical hourly wage was $18.31, a premium of over $3 per hour over the economy-wide median wage.

Looking more closely at different types of jobs within the industry helps to explain the difference. The median wage of blue collar, or production workers-folks who do jobs like welding and mixing-comes to about $16 per hour in highway construction compared to about $13.50 in the overall economy.

This page at Recovery.gov has a map you can use to see how much money in highway funds will go to individual states.

Iowa is slated to receive about $358 million, of which about $240 million can be used in any part of the state.

The remaining money is to be allocated as follows: $10.7 million for “mandatory transportation enhancements,” $20.8 million for use in urban areas, $73.2 million for use in suburban areas and $13.4 million for use in rural areas. (By the way, “‘enhancement’ is a legally defined term for projects such as sidewalk repairs, bicycle paths, and beautification projects.”)

Decisions within each state on where to spend the money need to be made quickly:

Parts of the allocation are set aside to make sure that urban, suburban, and rural areas alike all get a share. But since local leaders — mayors and governors — know their communities best, much of the money is left to states’ discretion. And if states don’t use it, they lose it. To make sure that funds go out quickly to give our economy the jolt it needs, states have 120 days to assign the funds to specific projects.

As a rule, federal highway funds tend to go toward new road construction, but it would be better to direct the stimulus funds primarily toward fixing the roads and bridges we have. Repairing crumbling roads and bridges improves safety, the quality of life and property values in existing neighborhoods. Building new roads stimulates sprawl without solving traffic congestion problems.

Sprawling development also increases “vehicle miles traveled” per capita and consequently greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks.

Spending stimulus highway money on a “fix-it-first basis” would not only be wise, but also popular. As I mentioned in my previous post, a national survey by Hart Research Associates, released last week, found that “An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over building new roads […].”

Here’s hoping Iowa transportation officials will spend the stimulus money wisely.

I didn’t know about this event when I posted my weekly calendar, but I received an action alert from 1000 Friends of Iowa about an important meeting tonight in Des Moines. The full action alert is after the jump, including details on the place and time. Here is an excerpt:

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) & the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have scheduled a Public Input Meeting to gather comments from citizens regarding the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (DMAMPO) transportation planning process.

Every four years the FHWA & the FTA conduct a certification review of the DMAMPO. The review evaluates the effectiveness of the DMAMPO’s transportation planning process, and ensures federal guidelines are being followed. Each MPO is required to solicit and utilize citizen input in local transportation decisions. If citizen input isn’t resulting in changes that reflect the unique transportation needs of the community, the public participation process must be adjusted to make certain it does. […]

The experience of 1000 Friends of Iowa is that the FHA pays attention to the comments of citizens. In the 2005 Transportation Planning Certification Review Summary Report under “Overview of Findings From the 2005 Certification Review”, the FHWA & FTA noted that “The Year 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan appears to be a collection of local transportation desires rather than a document offering a regional focus for the Des Moines metropolitan area’s future transportation system. The Plan needs to provide a regional vision, rather than just serve as a compilation of local priorities.”  

(emphasis added) With federal stimulus dollars on the way and the state of Iowa potentially

issuing new bonds to pay for infrastructure, it is critical that we not blindly follow a bunch of local wish lists for new roads. We should fix what we have first.

Speaking of which, a new national survey by Hart Research Associates found that

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over building new roads […]

To accommodate future U.S. population growth, which is expected to increase by 100 million by 2050, Americans favor improving intercity rail and transit, walking and biking over building new highways. When asked what the federal government’s top priority should be for 2009 transportation funding, half of all respondents recommended maintaining and repairing roads and bridges, while nearly one third said “expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation.” Only 16 percent said “expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges.”

When asked about approaches to addressing traffic, 47 percent preferred improving public transportation, 25 percent chose building communities that encourage people not to drive, and 20 percent preferred building new roads. fifty-six percent of those surveyed believe the federal government is not devoting enough attention to trains and light rail systems, and three out of four favor improving intercity rail and transit.

Transportation for America, a new coalition of more than 225 organizations, has called on President Barack Obama and Congress to “launch a new federal transportation mission.” The federal transportation program comes up for reauthorization in Congress later this year.

President Barack Obama formally announced on Monday that he is nominating Kathleen Sebelius to serve as Health and Human Services Secretary in his cabinet. She should be confirmed with little trouble, as various Republicans have already praised her nomination.

After the jump I’ve posted my initial thoughts on the pluses and minuses of this appointment.

I saw in the Sunday Des Moines Register that people at Wartburg and Luther colleges in northeast Iowa channeled their competitive energy into something useful:

Pranksters traditionally make 75-mile road trips between Decorah and Waverly to dress campus statues in opposition colors. Now they have been joined by eco-conscious students in a month-long competition to see which school can conserve more energy and lower campus utility bills.

Strategies have included shorter showers, turned-off lights and unplugged cell phone chargers. […]

“If we lose, we have to have a sign that says ‘Wartburg won’ ” displayed publicly for one month, Luther freshman Brian Gerike, 19, of St. Louis said. “I don’t think anyone wants to see that at Luther.” […]

Two state universities in drought-plagued North Carolina saved 11 million gallons of water in a three-month contest last year.

Luther senior and Minnesota native Megan Selvig, 21, said the trick is to inject rivalry into the mix.

She said Luther students will try to win any contest that includes that school to the south.

“Their ears perk up when they hear Wartburg,” Selvig said.

The feeling is mutual.[…]

A winner will determined when February utility bills arrive.

In a final push for victory, Luther dormitory dwellers were planning to hold “blackout parties” Saturday night.

I’ve never been into college rivalries, but think about how much water and energy could be saved if the University of Iowa and Iowa State agreed to an efficiency contest.

With deep budget cuts looming, all college and university presidents should think about ways to get the student body excited about something that will save money. Normally college students have little reason to conserve energy, because they’re not paying the utility bills.

Speaking of saving money, we noticed a big drop in our utility bills after Mr. desmoinesdem turned down the thermostats to between 59 and 62 (in previous winters we’ve kept the house at 64 to 66). It’s still comfortable as long as I wear layers and slippers.

Daily Kos user chapter1 wrote a good diary recently about a new meter that gives people rapid feedback about how much electricity they use at home. This helps people understand which small changes can make a big difference in their consumption, the same way a Prius shows continuously how the way you drive affects the car’s mileage.

This thread is for any suggestions on saving energy or putting human competitive streaks to good use.

UPDATE: The Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) “seeks to hire a dedicated Energy Efficiency Policy and Technical Specialist with 3+ years of professional experience for a full-time position in our Chicago, Columbus, Des Moines or Madison offices.” Click the link for more details.

Congratulations are in order for the three winners of the Iowa Citizen Action Network’s 2009 awards.

Congressman Bruce Braley of Iowa’s first district will receive the award for legislative leadership. (Apparently Braley is a longtime ICAN member–good for him!) The Progressive Coalition of Central Iowa will receive the award for grassroots leadership. ICAN board member Brad Lint, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice, will receive the political strategist award.

These awards will be presented at ICAN’s 30th anniversary celebration on Saturday, March 28, from 5:30 to 7:00 pm at the Hilton Garden Inn, 8600 Northpark Drive in Johnston. Tickets for this event cost $30. USAction President William McNary will present Braley’s award, Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie will present PCCI’s award, and Open Left co-founder Mike Lux (author of the new book The Progressive Revolution) will present Lint’s award.

There’s a lot happening on March 28, and ICAN’s celebration seems like a good place to go after you attend the Iowa Democratic Women’s Summit and/or the Natural Living Expo.  

There’s a lot going on the next two weeks, so I put all the details after the jump.

Please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of an event I’ve left out.

I noticed on the Iowa Environmental Council’s newsletter that they are looking for a new program director:

The Iowa Environmental Council is in the process of establishing an air quality program area. The Council is seeking an individual to conduct research, engage in coalition building and public education and advise the Council on policy opportunities available to protect Iowa’s air quality. For job requirements, description, salary information and how to apply, go to: www.iaenvironment.org, and click on “job opening” on the gold sidebar. Please share this information with others.

Longtime Bleeding Heartland readers know that I’ve always worried Barack Obama would leave too many U.S. troops in Iraq for too long. When he decided to stick with George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, some analysts argued that Robert Gates would give Obama cover to withdraw from Iraq, but I felt it was more likely that Gates would give Obama cover not to withdraw from Iraq, at least not fully.

This week President Obama announced his plans for Iraq. Supposedly “combat operations” will end by August 2010, meaning that the withdrawal will take 18 months rather than 16 months, as Obama promised during the campaign. My concern is not the extra two months, but Obama’s decision to leave a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq after August 2010. That sounds like too large a contingent to me and to many Congressional Democrats.

I suppose I should be grateful that Obama isn’t following the advice of Colin Kahl, who headed his Iraq working group during the campaign. Kahl has advocated leaving 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq for years (see also here).

Seeing the glass half full, Chris Bowers is pleased that Obama says all U.S. military will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011:

In September of 2007, President Obama refused to promise to remove all troops from Iraq by January 20th, 2013. Now, he has promised to remove them all by December 31st, 2011. That is a positive shift.

This is huge for no residual forces proponents. Now that President Obama has made this pledge, in public, it will be difficult for him to go back on it. This is especially the case since turning back on a promise with a deadline of December 31st, 2011, means violating a pledge during 2012–the year President Obama will be running for re-election. Anti-war proponents need to be prepared to raise holy hell during 2012 if this promise is not kept.

It is frustrating that it took the Iraqi government, rather than internal anti-war pressure, to finally secure a no residual troop promise from the American government (and they actually succeeded in wringing it out of the Bush administration, something Democrats were entirely unable to achieve). Still, as someone who has opposed the Iraq war for more than six years, and who been has writing about the need for no residual American military forces in Iraq for more than two years, any promise of no residual forces from the American government, backed up by a binding, public document like the Status of Forces Agreement, it an extremely welcome development no matter how it was secured.

The Iraq war is going to end. No residual troops after 2011.

I am concerned that some excuse will be found by then to push back the deadline. (Seeing John McCain and other Republicans praise Obama’s plans for Iraq does not reassure me.) I have little confidence that the anti-war movement would raise “holy hell” during a presidential election year if Obama backs off on this promise.

But I am biased on this point, because I’ve never believed in Obama as a great anti-war hero.

So, I’m opening up the floor to the Bleeding Heartland community. Are you ecstatic, optimistic, skeptical, or disappointed with Obama’s Iraq policy? Do you believe he will stick to the deadlines he outlined this week for the end of combat operations and the withdrawal of all residual troops?

Feel free to discuss our Afghanistan policy in this thread too. Obama plans to increase the number of U.S. troops there, but Senator Russ Feingold and some others are wondering whether more troops will help us achieve our stated mission.