President Barack Obama will present his first budget request to Congress today.

Early leaks indicate that he will propose some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans as well as some spending cuts to help pay for health care reform.

Ezra Klein, an excellent blogger on health care, is excited about what’s in the budget regarding health care reform. Although there is no detailed plan, Obama is submitting eight principles that should define health care reform efforts. Klein believes the principle of “universality” is likely to lead Congress to propose an individual mandate to hold health insurance.

I support mandated coverate only if there is a public plan that any American, regardless of age and income, can purchase as an alternative to private health insurance. The public plan would work like Medicare, in that individuals would be able to choose their own providers. Unfortunately, the Massachusetts model of mandatory private insurance without a meaningful public option has left a lot of problems unsolved.

It is not clear how much Obama will do to roll back George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I am with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others who would prefer to start rolling back tax cuts for the top 1 percent immediately. Last month the president seemed to be leaning toward letting those tax cuts expire over the next two years rather than fighting to repeal them this year.

According to Bloomberg,

President Barack Obama’s first budget request would provide as much as $750 billion in new aid to the financial industry […]

No wonder Obama went out of his way to make the case for helping banks during his address to Congress on Tuesday night. I firmly oppose shelling out another $750 billion toward this end, especially since the bailout money we’ve already spent hasn’t accomplished the stated goals of the program.

According to AFP, today’s budget proposal will include a plan

to raise money through a mandatory cap on greenhouse emissions.

Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag earlier estimated that a cap-and-trade scheme could generate 112 billion dollars by 2012, and up to 300 billion dollars a year by 2020.

Cap-and-trade may be more politically palatable, but a carbon tax may be a better approach for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

In cabinet-related news, have calculated that expanding the food-stamp program

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar wasn’t the top choice of environmentalists, but I was pleased to read this post:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled oil shale development leases on Federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and announced that the Interior Department would first study the water, power and land-use issues surrounding the development oil shale.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary wants to review US Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and told Congress that employers should be the focus of raids seeking to enforce immigration laws at workplaces. Obviously, swooping in and arresting a bunch of undocumented workers does nothing to address the root of the problem if employers are not forced to change their hiring practice.

Yesterday Obama named former Washington Governor Gary Locke as his latest choice to run the Commerce Department. Locke seems like a business-friendly Democrat, which is a big improvement over conservative Republican Judd Gregg, who thankfully withdrew his nomination for this post.

Republicans have been freaking out because of alleged plans by the Obama administration to “take control of the census.” Of course the GOP wants to continue the practices that have caused millions of white Americans to be double-counted in past censuses while millions more Americans in urban centers (largely non-whites) were not counted at all. Click here for more on the political battle over the census.

This thread is for any thoughts or comments about Obama’s cabinet or budget.

Jill Richardson’s post on extremely low food stamp participation rates in San Diego got me wondering how well Iowa does in getting eligible people enrolled in this program.

Bleeding-heart liberal that I am, I’d like to see 100 percent of people who qualify for food stamps get them, just for the sake of reducing hunger in our communities.

But let’s leave ethical concerns aside for now. Economic researchers, most recently Moody’s Economy.com, have calculated that expanding the food-stamp program produces more economic stimulus than any other kind of government spending, and much more than any form of tax cuts.  Every additional dollar spent on food stamps translates into $1.73 circulating in the economy.

This page on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website contains links to many studies comparing the state participation rates for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (the official name for the food stamp program). All of the recent annual reports are pdf files you can download.

The report for 2004 put Iowa in 22nd place for food stamp participation and estimated that 61 percent of the 286,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them.

The report for 2005 ranked Iowa 24th and estimated that 66 percent of the 307,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them.

The report for 2006 ranked Iowa 20th and estimated that 71 percent of the 309,000 people eligible for food stamps were receiving them. Data for 2007 and 2008 are not yet available on the USDA site.

As you can see, Iowa is doing a little better at getting food stamps to the people who qualify for them, but we have a long way to go to match the states near the top. In the top three states, more than 90 percent of people eligible for food stamps are getting them. That figure is above 80 percent for the next five states.

Increasing Iowa’s food stamp enrollment rate from 71 percent to 80 percent would translate to nearly 30,000 more people receiving food stamps in our state. If we could get food stamp participation above 90 percent, roughly 60,000 more Iowans would be receiving food stamps. Those people would consequently have more to spend on other goods and services. Many retailers would benefit as the money flowed through the economy.

I don’t know exactly what needs to be done to further improve Iowa’s food stamp participation rate. There’s a lot of research on the USDA site on factors that affect enrollment. I would welcome comments or a diary from someone with expertise in this area about what Iowa’s doing well already and what we need to do better.

Given the multiplier effect of food stamp benefits on economic activity, this program merits attention from policy-makers looking to stimulate the economy. Government spending on infrastructure projects is worthwhile (as long as we fix what we have first), but let’s not ignore other efficient ways of sparking more economic activity.

To my conservative readers who start hyperventilating at the thought of more people receiving government assistance: don’t think of it as extra food for families struggling to get by. Think of it as a fast way to save jobs in the retail sector–with a lot more bang for the buck than tax cuts.  

The Iowa Senate's state government committee has approved the bill that would move the USA away from the archaic electoral college. I was quite surprised–but pleased–to hear from Jack Kibbie last week that this might happen.

Most Americans think the electoral college is a mistake. Apparently the whole world agrees, because no other country has ever copied this 200 year old method of choosing a leader. It's really a relic of the free-state, slave-state compromises that were made in writing the Constitution. Until now it's been impossible to get rid of it, because it's so hard to amend the Constitution.

The new idea is to sign up states in a contract to cast their electoral votes as a group with all the votes going to the winner of the national popular vote (NPV). If Iowa joins the group, we'll vote for the national winner even if another candidate did better in Iowa. This plan will go into effect when the group controls the majority of the electoral college votes. Ingenious!

Skeptics always assert that the electoral college protects us and other small states. This not true. Research into where candidates spend their time and money in the 90 days before a Presidential election proves they don't go to small states unless they are also swing states, such as Nevada in 2008. Who campaigned in Rhode Island or Wyoming? No one did, because they are not swing states.

So far only four states have joined—Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii. These are states that usually get ignored by Presidential candidates, so I can see why they passed it. Iowa has been a swing state, the center of much spending and campaigning. If the electoral college is kaput, we may get less attention. That's why I was surprised to see the bill gaining ground here. Time to get cynical . . . .

Why would we pass this bill? Isn't this carrying good government a little too far? (snark)

Maybe it has to do with the caucuses. We barely defended our caucus timeline in 2008 from attacks by Florida and Micigan. We get double attention in Iowa as both the first caucus and as a swing state. If we are generous enough to forego the swing state advantage, maybe the voters elsewhere won't keep beating on our caucus advantage.

Or maybe we see our swing-state status eroding. If Iowa becomes reliably Democratic(voted for the D five times of the last six elections), candidates won't come here in election years, only in caucus years. Going to the NPV could bring the candidates back since those many Iowa independents and Republicans would not be disenfrancised in a NPV system.

Whatever the motive–good government or selfish government–I'm glad for the progress. I hope the full Senate approves it, too.

——cross posted from IowaVoters.org

After watching Barack Obama's speech last night I realized that it truly was worth it. It was worth the all the miles I drove to hear all the candidates speak, all the time I volunteered, all the phone calls I made, and all the doors I knocked days before the Iowa caucuses in below zero weather.

Inauguration day was about the show, the monuments, the weight of the presidency, and the historical moment in our nation.

Election day was about the people, the volunteers, and the excitement.

The night of the Iowa Caucuses was about the beginning of a movement.

Last night, though, it all came together. Barack Obama called all Americans to the table to act. He spoke, not as a member of a political party, but as our President. President Obama was no longer making promises on a campaign trail, but instead laying a vision for our country, a path back to prosperity.

UPDATE from desmoinesdem: The full transcript of Obama's speech is after the jump. 

Technically, it’s not a State of the Union address, because Barack Obama hasn’t been president for a full year yet. I know plenty of Bleeding Heartland readers will be among the millions of people watching, so please use this thread to share your thoughts and reactions.

Here are a few links to get the discussion going. Chris Bowers puts forward a hypothesis about why so many people care about the State of the Union, which is just one of many speeches the president gives during the year.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility say the cap-and-trade approach to tackling global warming, which Obama supports, won’t work.

Obama seems to be “losing the right, consolidating the middle and left.”

A majority of Americans would rather see Obama stick to the policies he campaigned on rather than take a bipartisan approach:

    Which do you think should be a higher priority for  Barack Obama right now – working in a bipartisan way with Republicans in Congress or sticking to the policies he promised he would during the campaign:

   Working bipartisan way: 39%

   Sticking to policies: 56%

[…]

   Which do you think should be a higher priority for Republicans in Congress right now – working in a bipartisan way with Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress or sticking to Republican policies?

   Working bipartisan way: 79%

   Sticking to policies: 17%

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (the guy who was supposedly more “big tent” oriented) is open to cutting of RNC funding to the three Republican senators who voted for Obama’s economic stimulus bill.

Senate Republicans finally gave up on obstructing Hilda Solis’ nomination as Secretary of Labor today, and the Senate easily confirmed her by an 80 to 17 vote. Chuck Grassley was among the 24 Republicans who voted to confirm Solis. Tom Harkin did not vote but clearly would have voted yes, along with all the other Democrats, had he been in the chamber.

Solis’ confirmation was tied up for weeks in committee after Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming put an anonymous hold on her nomination. Today even he voted yes, indicating that he had no solid grounds for blocking her from serving in the cabinet. I suspect Enzi was just trying to see whether he could trick Barack Obama into withdrawing her nomination as a gesture to Republicans.

Solis’s staunch longtime support for organized labor will make her a target for the right-wing noise machine, but who cares?

For more on why Solis is one of Obama’s best appointments so far, read this piece by Meteor Blades and this one by Paul Rosenberg, who notes,

People just loved talking about what a great political leader Hilda Solis is. I didn’t have nearly enough room to include all the good stuff that was said.

Calitics takes a first stab at handicapping the special election in California’s 32nd district, which Solis is vacating. It’s a safe Democratic seat but will have a competitive primary.

Obama has two cabinet positions left to fill. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius appears to be the leading candidate for Health and Human Services now, and former Washington Governor Gary Locke is reportedly Obama’s pick for Commerce.  

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced that 40 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be in the “Frontline Program,” which seeks to protect incumbents in potentially vulnerable districts. Once again, Leonard Boswell of Iowa’s third district will be a Frontline Democrat. Here’s what the designation means:

The Frontline Program is a partnership between the DCCC and Members which lays the ground work for the 2010 cycle by supporting and expanding their fundraising and outreach operations. Frontline Members must sign a memorandum of understanding, strengthened this cycle to reflect the challenging political environment, that requires Members to meet aggressive fundraising goals, accelerate volunteer and recruitment efforts, and increase their online networking.

The DCCC’s Frontline Program is a proven success. Frontline Members and the DCCC did its work effectively and early in the 2008 cycle.  As a result, the DCCC’s independent expenditure campaign made a significant investment in only 10 of 34 Frontline districts – approximately 15 percent of the IE’s budget.

I’ve put the DCCC’s press release after the jump. Most of the others named to the Frontline list appear to be in more vulnerable districts than Boswell. Republicans targeted Boswell during his first five re-election campaigns but did not make a serious challenge in IA-03 in 2008. Boswell defeated Kim Schmett by 56 percent to 42 percent in November.

Here’s an interesting fact from the DCCC’s statement, which underscores how the Republican Party has become increasingly uncompetitive in large parts of the country:

There are 83 Democrats in districts that President [George] Bush won in 2004, while there are only six (6) Republicans in seats that Senator [John] Kerry won.

Presumably a significant number of those 83 districts swung to Barack Obama in the 2008 election, as Iowa’s third district did. But the final presidential election results by Congressional district have not been calculated everywhere in the country.

I would be very surprised if the DCCC had to spend resources defending Boswell in the next election. Many House Democrats are in a more precarious position. Unfortunately, the irony is that re-electing Boswell in 2010 could make IA-03 a very tough hold for Democrats in 2012.

The DCCC is staying on offense as well, launching robocalls this week in the districts of 12 potentially vulnerable House Republicans. A few weeks ago the DCCC ran radio ads in 28 Republican-held House districts, including Iowa’s fourth district. Tom Latham is not being targeted in the current robocall effort, however. It’s just as well, since IA-04 does not appear to be among the top Democratic pickup opportunities for the next cycle.

The “prevailing wage” bill fiasco finally ended on Monday:

In what officials called the longest vote in Iowa Statehouse history, House Speaker Pat Murphy at 1:09 p.m. today closed the voting machine on the prevailing wage bill after 2 days, 19 hours and 14 minutes, declaring the bill had lost.

The vote was 50-48, one vote short of passage. But then House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, switched his vote to “no” — a procedural move that will allow him to bring the bill up for reconsideration later this session. So the final vote stood at 49-49.

After the jump I consider the two eternal political questions: “What is to be done?” and “Who is to blame?”

One year ago today I was battling an ear infection that turned bad enough to put me in the hospital for a week.

What I went through then was among the worst experiences of my life. Yet looking back on the experience, I realize how lucky I was.

The rest of the story is after the jump.

Iowa’s first family set a great example recently by adopting a puppy from a shelter instead of buying one from a puppy mill. I know cynics will say Chet and Mari Culver were just looking for some good press (never mind the budget crunch–look at the cute puppy!), but I don’t care. They saved a shelter dog and gave him a good home. Their cat also came from the Animal Rescue League many years ago.

We adopted an adult dog from the Animal Rescue League in the summer of 2004, and I couldn’t be happier with the choice. We knew right away he had a good temperament around small kids (always a question mark when you get a puppy). Also, he was house-trained and didn’t chew up everything he found lying on the floor.

Here is a list of pet shelters in Iowa. Please consider a shelter animal if you want to expand your family.

To his credit, President Barack Obama made clear in November that his family would prefer to adopt a shelter dog. However, they have concerns about aggravating his daughter’s allergies. If that is an issue for your family, read this piece by Michael Markarian on adopting a dog in a household with pet allergies.

On a related note, you probably heard that Socks the cat, who resided in the Clinton White House, died recently at a ripe old age. I’m not a cat person, but I appreciated these memorial posts at Benny’s World and La Vida Locavore.

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

Monday, February 23:

From Iowa Global Warming:

February- Leadership for Coal and Climate

A chance for informed and concerned citizens to take concrete action.

This is your Invitation:

An Iowa Activist Evening

Iowa Global Warming Offices

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

6:00PM

505 5th Avenue Suite 333

Des Moines

   Limited Seating

Please RSVP (515) 244-3113 cucles@iowaglobalwarming.org

Implemting ICCAC Recommendations

How we can stop the Marshalltown Plant

Send your voice to Washington

Get High Speed Rail Service to Des Moines

Screening of “Fighting Goliath” A short film about the fight for coal in texas. Food and film snacks will be provided.

Sponsors: Sierra Club, Iowa Interfaith Power & Light, Iowa Global Warming Campaign, Sierra Student Coalition.

There is a PFLAG meeting featuring One Iowa regional organizer, Ryan Crane, at  St. Benedict’s Catholic Church, 309 W. Main St. in Decorah, 7 pm.

Wednesday, February 25:

Friends of Iowa Midwives is having its lobby day at the state capitol from 10 am to 3 pm. To register, or for more information, email info@friendsofiowamidwives.org, or click here:

http://www.friendsofiowamidwiv…

Thursday, February 26:

From One Iowa:

As Iowa Goes So Goes the Nation Symposium: Varnum v. Brien and its Impact on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples

Sponsored by the Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice and featuring a keynote by Dan Savage

University of Iowa School of Law, Iowa City

Click here for more information or to register.

Someone post a diary afterwards to tell us how Dan Savage did!

From the Center on Sustainable Communities:

Leadership Forum on Sustainable Building With Marc Richmond Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:45am – 2:00pm

LOCATION: Raccoon River Park Nature Lodge, 2500 Grand Avenue in West Des Moines.

PROGRAM: As Iowa’s leading resource on sustainable building education, COSC is conducting a Leadership Forum with Marc Richmond for Iowa’s business leaders, community leaders, state agency leaders, and policy makers.  The session will define the key components of sustainable building and illustrate strategies for building sustainable communities based on national models.

You will find more information at www.icosc.com.

Friday, February 27:

The symposium on Varnum v Brien continues at the University of Iowa law school.

Saturday, February 28:

Democracy for America is holding its acclaimed Training Academy in Des Moines on Saturday, February 28 and Sunday, March 1. Click here for more details. Iowa blogger noneed4thneed will be there!

The Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District is sponsoring a “sustainable living seminar” for “everyone interested in gardening, landscaping, conservation, and the environment” at DMACC from 9:30 am to 2:30 pm. I put the full agenda after the jump–looks like a great program.

Saw this on the Sierra Club Iowa Topics list:

Plymouth Church UCC, Des Moines, Green Team will sponsor the showing of the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” after the Saturday evening Service (service 5:30-6:30) on February 28. “This 2006 documentary film explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s.  The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.” Admission is free. Plymouth Church is located at the corner of 42nd and Ingersoll Avenue in Des Moines.  The church is 2 blks south of the 42nd St exit of I-235.  The Green Team has a new blog on the Plymouth website: plymouthgreen.org where they discuss “our own struggles with adopting a greener lifestyle and welcome your comments.”  Plymouth Church is a Cool Congregation.

Daily Kos user JoesUnionReview brought Nigel Haskett’s story to my attention. Haskett was working at a McDonald’s in Arkansas and saw a woman being assaulted in the restaurant. He threw her attacker out and stood at the door to keep the man from coming back in. The assailant got a gun from his car and shot Haskett multiple times. Three abdominal surgeries later, Haskett has $300,000 in medical bills, but “the insurance agency representing McDonald’s says he doesn’t qualify for Worker’s Compensation in this incident.”

JoesUnionReview goes over the legal issues surrounding the worker’s compensation claim and why McDonald’s should be liable.

To me, this is even more unfair than Pizza Hut firing the Des Moines delivery driver who shot a would-be armed robber. That case prompted some people to boycott Pizza Hut. Will anyone boycott McDonald’s for its treatment of Haskett? I would, but I don’t think McDonald’s would notice, since I haven’t eaten there for years.

By the way, if we had universal health care in this country, someone who got shot while doing a minimum-wage job with no benefits would not get stuck with a $300,000 bill.  

Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots movement that didn’t even exist a few months ago, has collected more than 86,000 signatures from Americans who support change in our country’s food and agriculture policies:

Food Democracy Now! is a grassroots movement initiated by farmers, writers, chefs, eaters and policy advocates who recognize the profound sense of urgency in creating a new food system that is capable of meeting the changing needs of American society as it relates to food, health, animal welfare and the environment.

As such, we are dedicated to advancing the dialogue on food, family farm, environmental and sustainability issues at the legislative and policy level. We understand the dynamic interplay between today’s industrialized agricultural system and its impacts on human health and well-being, health care costs, rural communities and the environment. We advocate for policies that encourage sustainable, humane, organic and natural food systems.

We seek to transform today’s system by advancing best practices in food production, animal husbandry, conservation of natural resources, renewable energy and soil preservation. Through these efforts we hope to stimulate local food systems, promote rural economic development, encourage a new generation of farmers and respond to the growing public demand for wholesome, fairly-produced food. We will also support candidates who advance this vision and who embrace common sense policies that respect our nation’s air, water, soil, livestock, food workers, consumers and family farmers.

Click here and scroll down the page for background on the people who founded Food Democracy Now! Click here to view the list of the petition’s 90 original signers.

Next week Food Democracy Now! plans to deliver the petition to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, so they are pushing to reach a goal of 100,000 signatures.

If you haven’t done so already, go sign the petition, then ask a few of your friends to sign too.

The “prevailing wage” bill, one of organized labor’s top legislative priorities, stalled in the Iowa House on Friday as Democrats were unable to find a 51st vote. Apparently the plan is to try to twist someone’s arm over the weekend:

House Speaker Pat Murphy will keep the voting machine open the entire weekend until Democrats can convince one of their dissenting members to change their vote. The move will mean Murphy will have to sleep in the chamber over the weekend.

“I want to be sure that taxpayer money is going to responsible Iowa employers who pay a decent wage, not employers who take advantage of people like we’ve seen in Postville and Atalissa,” Murphy said. “As the presiding officer of the House, I will stay in the Speaker’s chair and the voting machine will remain open until Monday. My goal is to get 51 votes and make sure we have good-paying jobs for middle class families.”

This post is not about the merits of the bill, which I support. (Click here for background on House file 333, which “would require that companies that contract for public projects pay workers wages and benefits comparable to private projects in the area.”)

This post is about why Democratic House leaders now face two unappealing outcomes: either they fail to pass a good bill supported by a key Democratic constituency, or they force one of their members into an embarrassing about-face that could affect the next election campaign.

Further thoughts on this mess are after the jump.

Earlier this month, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources issued a draft air quality permit for the proposed coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown. There are big problems with the draft permit. For one thing, it does not regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, even though coal-fired power plants are a major source of greenhouse gases.

In addition, the draft permit does not regulate fine particulate matter (also known as particulate matter 2.5), which causes and exacerbates many respiratory illnesses. Fine particulate matter isn’t just a nuisance–it causes many premature deaths. You would think that an air quality permit would address an air pollution issue with major implications for human health.

The good news is that on Friday the DNR extended the public comment period for this air quality permit, thanks to numerous comments encouraged by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. Mike Carberry of Green State Solutions forwarded the DNR’s press release to me:

Due to extensive interest, the public comment period for the draft air quality construction permits for the coal-fired power plant proposed by Interstate Power and Light for its Marshalltown facility-Sutherland Generating Station-has been extended to May 18. Public hearings will also be held in five additional cities.

Currently scheduled are four public hearings (two each at two locations):

March 16, 2:30 p.m. – 5 p.m., Iowa Veterans’ Home, Whitehill Chapel, 1501 Summit Street Marshalltown

March 16, 6:30 p.m. – 9 p.m., Iowa Veterans’ Home, Marshalltown

March 17, 3 p.m. – 5 p.m., Meskwaki Tribal Center, 346 Meskwaki Road, Tama

March 17, 7 p.m. – 9 p.m., Meskwaki Tribal Center, Tama

Due to the many comments received from particular areas of the state, additional public hearings have been scheduled in Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Iowa City and the Waterloo/Cedar Falls area. Specific times and sites have not been determined at this point, but the hearings will likely be held in early May. As soon as that information is available it will be released to the public.

The public hearings are for the purpose of accepting comments only. Comments at the public hearings will be limited to five minutes. Presentations shall include a hard copy for inclusion into public record.

Comments may also be submitted in writing before 4:30 p.m., May 18, to Chris Roling, Air Quality Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 7900 Hickman Road Ste 1, Urbandale, IA 50322 or emailed to chris.roling@dnr.iowa.gov.

All documents for this project are available on the DNR Air Quality Bureau’s Web site at http://aq48.dnraq.state.ia.us:…

# # #

Please submit your comments on this draft air quality permit. Making this permit stronger in any way would reduce the adverse impact of this coal plant and might prompt the utility to abandon the project.

You can download a pdf file with talking points for your comments on the Iowa page of the Sierra Club’s website.

Progressive Punch has added a new and incredibly useful layer of analysis to its rankings of members of Congress by voting record.

The “Select by Score” pages now indicate how progressive representatives and senators are compared to the districts and states they represent.

Select by Score Senate rankings

Select by Score House rankings

As before, you see members of the House and Senate ranked from most progressive to least progressive, based on all votes as well as on certain “crucial votes.” Calculating a separate score for “crucial votes” reveals which Democrats are not reliable when the chips are down. This helps prevent gaming of the system, as when Joe Lieberman voted against filibustering Samuel Alito’s nomination for the Supreme Court, then turned around and voted against confirming him.

For the new feature, Progressive Punch has placed every state and Congressional district into one of five categories: strong D, lean D, swing, lean R, and strong R. Each Congress-critter’s “crucial vote” score is then compared to the political lean of the district or state. In the right-hand column on the “Select by Score” pages, every member of Congress now has a rating from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most progressive. Progressive Punch explains:

The “%” and “Rating” columns underneath the “Progressive Score vs. State Tilt” are two different ways of measuring the same thing. They both measure how naughty or nice a member of Congress’ voting record has been in relation to his/her district. We’re grading on a curve. Five stars in the “Rating” column indicate members of Congress who are doing the best in terms of voting MORE progressively than could necessarily be expected given their states or districts. Those with one star are performing the worst in relation to their districts.

For more details on the methodology behind this analysis, click here for House ratings and here for Senate ratings.

Why is this useful? It’s now much easier to see which Democrats in Congress are voting about as well as could be expected, and which ones should be doing a lot better.  

Here are a few examples. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid have identical lifetime progressive scores on crucial votes. However, since Feinstein represents a strong Democratic state (CA) and Reid represents a swing state (NV), Feinstein gets a 1 while Reid gets a 3.

Ron Wyden (OR), Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Amy Klobuchar (MN) have very similar lifetime scores, but Wyden and Klobuchar get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat states. Mikulski gets a 3 when graded on a curve that takes into account Maryland’s solid Democratic profile.

Similarly, Daniel Inouye (HI) gets a 1, while Jon Tester (MT) gets a 3 for almost the same “crucial vote” score, because Montana leans Republican.

Jeff Bingaman (NM), Jim Webb (VA) and Byron Dorgan (ND) have very similar progressive lifetime scores, but Bingaman gets a 2 for representing a lean-Democrat state, Webb gets a 3 for representing a swing state, and Dorgan gets a 4 for representing a lean-Republican state.

Scanning down the Select by Score House page, a few Democrats stand out. There’s Timothy Bishop (NY-01) with a 5 rating for how he represents his swing district, while most of the House members with similar lifetime scores get 3s, because they represent strong Democratic districts.

Dave Obey (WI-07) and Peter DeFazio (OR-04) get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat districts. Most of the House members with similar lifetime progressive scores get 3s.

Amid a large group of House Democrats who get a 2 when their crucial vote score is compared to how strongly Democratic their districts are, James Oberstar (MN-08) gets a 4 for a similar progressive score because he represents a swing district, while Michael Michaud (ME-02) and Paul Hodes (NH-02) get a 3 because their districts lean Democratic.

How can progressives use this information? One way would be to determine which incumbents in safe Democratic seats should face more pressure from the left. In extreme cases, this pressure could include a primary challenge.

Also, these rankings reveal which Democratic primaries should become top priorities for progressives when incumbents retire. For example, John Murtha (PA-12) and Henry Cuellar (TX-28) represent strongly Democratic districts but vote like Democrats representing swing or Republican districts.

For Bleeding Heartland readers who want to know how Iowa’s representatives are doing, Senator Tom Harkin was among the 22 Senate Democrats whose lifetime score earned a 5 (good work!). He’s only slightly more progressive than the average Senate Democrat; his lifetime score on crucial votes ranks 19th in the caucus.

Chuck Grassley’s lifetime progressive score is very low, around 5 percent. Amazingly, 28 Senate Republicans are even less progressive than he is.

Iowa’s House Democrats didn’t fare so well when graded on Progressive Punch’s curve. Dave Loebsack (IA-02) gets a 2 for having the 118th most progressive score on crucial votes (just over 80 percent) while representing a strongly Democratic district.

Bruce Braley (IA-01) gets a 1 for having the 147th most progressive score on crucial votes (just over 75 percent) while representing a strongly Democratic district.

Both Braley and Loebsack have progressive scores around 95 percent if you look at all votes, but given how safe their seats are, they could certainly improve on their voting records “when the chips are down.”

Leonard Boswell (IA-03) also gets a 1 for having the 189th most progressive score on crucial votes (only 64 percent) while representing a lean-Democratic district. (On the plus side, his overall score for the current session is a lot better than his lifetime score.) Many House Democrats with voting records like Boswell’s represent swing or Republican-leaning districts. When this becomes an open seat, the Democratic primary should be a top target for progressives.

You will not be surprised to learn that Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) are in a large group of House Republicans who hardly ever vote for the progressive side of any issue.  

Senator Grassley spent this week touring several counties in Iowa, holding Town Hall meetings and doing tours of various facilities. This evening he was in Mechanicsville, IA. This is a pretty small town – it's in Cedar County – eastern side of the state.

In 2004 Cedar County was Bush 50% and Kerry 49%. In 2008 Obama got 54% to McCain's 44%. I was told by a volunteer tonight that the Obama campaign's goal in this county was 5,200 votes. Obama got 5,221 votes. 

Senator Grassley set up all his events this week in small towns – ensuring that media outlets would have to travel to see him. Well, clonecone and I went to see him – and we brought a video camera. We haven't been able to upload the video yet, but I expect to do another diary with video and more details tomorrow or Saturday…in the meantime, some highlights!

adapted with minor changes from a diary I wrote last February

One day in February 2007, Steve Gilliard wrote his last post for the News Blog and went to the doctor to get a prescription for a cold he couldn’t shake. He was admitted to the hospital right away for treatment of an infection of unknown origin, and he never was able to get back on his computer. He died that June.

I know I’m not the only former News Blog addict who thinks of Steve every time Republican Party chairman Michael Steele says something ridiculous. Steve would have had a field day with the RNC leadership contest. Just imagine the post he might have written about this list of prominent conservatives who endorsed Ken Blackwell.

Further reflections on what Steve’s blogging meant to me are after the jump.

Chris Bowers wrote a good post on where Representative Bruce Braley’s new Populist Caucus fits in among House Democrats. The whole piece is worth reading, but here’s an excerpt:

Clearly, there is a strong tendency toward the Progressive caucus among the Populists, even though they were organized by a New Democrat. Further, Progressive punch puts the median lifetime score on “crucial votes” for this group at 55.5 of 256 (between [Joe] Courtney at 54 and [Dave] Loebsack at 57) in the Democratic caucus, placing it decidedly in the left-wing of the party.

[…]

Notably, the Populists are also heavy on the class of 2006, as 14 of the 20 members listed by the Huffington Post were first elected to Congress that year (and Massa came within an inch of being a 15th that year). Only Boswell, DeFazio, Filner Sanchez and Schakowsky were first elected to Congress before 2006. As such, while it displayed the same fractured tendencies of all ideological caucuses across the three bailout votes, the Populist Caucus appears to be primarily a caucus of progressive sophomore Representatives. This is particularly interesting since the class of 2006 was supposed to be a conservative dominated class ushered in by then -DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel. Now, the progressive members of that class appear to have organized a new caucus for themselves.

I didn’t realize until I read this page on Braley’s website that Tom Harkin chaired a House Populist Caucus during the 1980s:

In February of 1983, a group of 14 Midwest Democratic members of Congress founded the first known “Populist Caucus” with the goal to “fight for such economic goals as fairer taxes, lower interest rates and cheaper energy.”

The original Populist Caucus was chaired by then-Rep. Tom Harkin (D-IA).  The other members in the caucus were Berkley Bedell (D-IA); Lane Evans (D-IL); Tom Daschle (D-SD); Al Gore (D-TN); Timothy Penny (D-MN); Jim Weaver (D-OR); Byron Dorgan (D-ND); Harold Volkmer (D-MO); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bob Wise (D-WV); Frank McCloskey (D-IN); Bill Richardson (D-NM); Gerry Sikorski (D-MN); and Mike Synar (D-OK).

The first Populist Caucus dissolved by the mid-1990’s.

Several members of that original Populist Caucus had been elected to the U.S. Senate or had left the House for other reasons by the early 1990s.

Side note: Bill Richardson once identified himself as a populist? Wow.

The new Populist Caucus platform is on Braley’s website:

  1. Fighting for working families and the middle class by creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America, providing fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and ensuring American workers have secure, solvent retirement plans.

  2. Cutting taxes for the middle class and establishing an equitable tax structure.

  3. Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans.

  4. Ensuring quality primary education for all American children, and affordable college education for all who want it.

  5. Defending American competiveness by fighting for fair trade principles.

  6. Protecting consumers, so that Americans can have faith in the safety and effectiveness of the products they purchase

I will be interested to see how the Populist Caucus weighs in on the coming debates over health care, workers’ rights and tax policy.

A full list of the 23 founding Populist Caucus members is after the jump.  

The Iowa Senate approved the Natural Resources Trust Fund constitutional amendment today by 49 to 1, with Senator Pam Jochum (D) casting the only no vote.

The Iowa House approved the same bill yesterday by 82 to 14, with 4 not voting. Although the measure passed with strong bipartisan support, 11 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted no.

This is a huge victory for the Sustainable Funding Coalition, which includes the following organizations:

Conservation Districts of Iowa

Ducks Unlimited

Environment Iowa

Environmental Law & Policy Center

Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards

Iowa Conservation Alliance

Iowa Environmental Council

Iowa Farmers Union

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

Iowa Rivers Revival

Izaak Walton League

The Nature Conservancy

Pheasants Forever

Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter

Here is some background on the bill from the Iowa Environmental Council’s website:

This bill will …

Establish a constitutionally protected state fund for protecting and enhancing water quality, conserving Iowa’s precious agricultural soils, and much more.  Minnesota and other states have established similar trust funds.

This bill will NOT raise taxes

In Iowa, taxes cannot be raised by a constitutional amendment. However, constitutional amendments can dedicate a portion of tax revenue to certain activities. If this bill (currently numbered as SJR1 in the Senate and HJR1 in the House) becomes law, and WHEN sales taxes are increased in Iowa in the future, the first 3/8 cent of the new tax must be earmarked or dedicated to this new Trust.

Why sustainable funding?

Increased and protected state funding is essential to provide key benefits across Iowa:

* Cleaner water

* Positive economic impacts

* Sustainable agriculture and soils

* Outdoor recreation opportunities close to home where Iowans can enjoy and appreciate healthy activities, nature, and Iowa’s beauty.

Why a constitutional amendment?

Sales tax revenues are much more stable than the state budget. With a constitutional amendment that guarantees 3/8 cent of sales tax revenue to conservation, there will be predictable and steady funding for important long-term programs for a healthier environment.

What’s the process to establish the sustainable funding?

A vote of the people, as well as a vote of two different legislative bodies, is needed.

1. The 2008 Iowa Legislature passes the joint resolution to place the issue on public ballot.

2. The 2009 Iowa Legislature passes the same joint resolution.

3. Iowans would vote on the resolution in a statewide election. A simple majority is needed for its passage.

4. The Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund begins accumulating when Iowa sales tax is increased.

The Iowa Environmental Council has also prepared this fact sheet (pdf file) on the sustainable funding initiative.

Although I would have voted for this bill, I have mixed feelings about it. I recognize the importance of securing a reliable funding stream for these programs, and this approach seems to work well for other states.

At the same time, I know California got into trouble by adopting too many constitutional amendments on funding this or that program. I also question why adequate funding for the environment should depend on raising the sales tax, which is regressive.

People involved with the Sustainable Funding Coalition have told me that they are working with the Iowa Policy Project to come up with a way to mitigate the impact that a sales tax hike would have on lower-income Iowans. (One option would be to increase the earned-income tax credit at the same time that the sales tax is increased.)

The Des Moines Register quoted four representatives explaining their votes, and I felt all raised valid points:

Rep. Paul Bell, D-Newton: “It is only right that we protect and maintain our natural resources for our children and godchildren.”

Rep. Mike May, R-Spirit Lake: “This is not a political issue. This is an environmental issue. A vibrant environment is incredibly important to our future. I’m concerned that we may supplant the funds that are now dedicated to DNR with this money. It behooves the Legislature to be vigilant and committed that we are going to protect this money.”

OPPONENTS: Rep. Cindy Winckler, D-Davenport: “We are elected to make decisions every day. Calling for a constitutional amendment allows us to put off our decision about our valuable natural resources. I do not think we need permission from our voters to make this important decision.”

Rep. Greg Forristall, R-Macedonia: “I support many causes that are mentioned in this resolution. Here’s my problem. What’s to prevent a future legislature from stripping all the money we currently spend (on natural resources) and switch to the money in this special fund?”

I put the full roll call from the Iowa House after the jump.