Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) announced plans to form a Populist Caucus in December. According to the Huffington Post, Braley plans to roll out the new caucus this week. (Hat tip David Sirota.)

Huffington Post lists most of the 21 founding members, who come from all over the country. There are moderates like Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Phil Hare (IL-17), progressives like Keith Ellison (MN-05) and Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and netroots heroes like Eric Massa (NY-29) and Pete DeFazio (OR-04). According to Huffington Post, Braley would be open to having Republicans join the caucus, although only Democrats have signed up so far.

Braley’s letter inviting colleagues to join the caucus listed these key points of the Populist Caucus agenda:

1. Fighting for working families and the middle class through the establishment of an equitable tax structure, fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and secure, solvent retirement plans.

2. Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care to all Americans.

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

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

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

6. Creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America.

Huffington Post also had this encouraging news:

The Populist Caucus will make its first major play by advocating for the inclusion of a “Buy American” provision in the stimulus package.

Bring it on. The “Buy American” provision is important if we want the stimulus to create jobs in the U.S. rather than taxpayer-funded outsourcing.

Though only starting his second term in Congress, Braley is rising fast. He landed a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee after aggressively advocating for Henry Waxman to replace John Dingell as its chairman. He is also one of three vice-chairs of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

When Barack Obama nominated Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary and appointed Larry Summers to be the chief presidential economics adviser, I became very worried. Summers had a hand in some of Bill Clinton’s deregulation policies that have contributed to our current economic problems, and Geithner was a key architect of the Wall Street bailout last fall.

Here and at other blogs, some commenters urged me to “give Obama a chance–he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.”

Geithner confirmed my worst fears today when he rolled out the new-and-improved bailout plan (using the second $350 billion tranche from the Troubled Assets Relief Program). Economist James Galbraith came up with the name Bad Assets Relief Fund (BARF) to describe Geithner’s plan.

Other bloggers have already explained why Geithner’s proposal is an unimaginably pricey gift to Wall Street bankers at the expense of the public interest. This diary by MyDD user bobswern hits all the main points, drawing on a front-page story in the New York Times and other sources.

Writing about how Geithner prevailed over presidential advisers like David Axelrod, who wanted to attach more strings to the taxpayer money Wall Street bankers would receive, David Sirota observed,

Interestingly, the divide inside the administration seems to hearken back to a divide discussed very early on in the formation of the administration – the one whereby progressives were put in strictly political positions, and zombie conservatives were put in the policymaking positions. In this case, more progressive politicos like Axelrod was overruled by corporate cronies like Geithner.

The good news is that at least there seems to be something of a debate inside the administration, however tepid. The bad news is what I and others predicted: namely, that progressives seem to have been ghettoized into the political/salesmanship jobs, the conservative zombies shaping policy aren’t interested in having any debate with them. Worse, we’re now learning that those zombies are as rigidly ideological as their initial policies seemed to suggest.

I stand by my prediction that Geithner will turn out to be one of Barack Obama’s worst appointments. I can’t fathom why Obama wants to “own” the very worst aspects of the Bush administration’s failed Wall Street bailout, while also depriving the government of cash needed for other domestic priorities.

The stock market fell sharply today, perhaps because investors have no confidence in Geithner’s scheme and perhaps because the compromise stimulus bill that passed the U.S. Senate came straight out of bizarro world (do click that link, you’ll enjoy it).

I hope Obama will recognize his mistake and let Geithner and Summers go within a year or so, but they’re already poised to do plenty of damage to his administration.

Speaking of bad appointments, isn’t it amazing that Obama didn’t even make Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire promise to vote for the stimulus bill in exchange for being named Commerce Secretary? Why would you put someone in a cabinet position with influence over economic policy if that person doesn’t even support the president’s stimulus plan?

Apparently Obama’s also considering making a lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce the main presidential adviser on judicial appointments. I’ve long anticipated that judges appointed by Obama would be corporate-friendly, pro-choice moderates in the Stephen Breyer mode, but I never imagined that a Chamber of Commerce lobbyist would be in a position to recommend only judges who would favor business interests.

If Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen becomes Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Obama-Biden magnet is coming off my car.

I was down at the capitol today for the Iowa Environmental Council’s annual “lobby day.” I am active with several groups that had tables there.

If you’ve never attended one of these events, I highly recommend the experience. It is easy to introduce yourself to legislators and talk about your group or the policies you’re supporting.

Some organizations, such as the Iowa Policy Project, had detailed reports to hand out today. Those are quite useful, and I hope they find a receptive audience at the statehouse, but you don’t always need that much detail for a conversation with a state representative or senator.

It helps to have a concise document (a page or two) making your case for specific policies or bills. These “wish lists” are not only for legislators, but also for anyone who wants to know more about your group.

The Iowa Environmental Council’s press release sums up the key points of that organization’s message today:

February 10, 2009

Iowa Environmental Council Asks Legislators for Burn Ban, More Energy Efficiency Programs

DES MOINES – Advocates for clean water and air, clean renewable energy, and sustainable funding for natural resources filled the Statehouse rotunda today to offer lawmakers suggestions for protecting Iowa’s precious natural resources in lean economic times.

Marian Riggs Gelb, executive director for the Iowa Environmental Council, encouraged legislators to act quickly to support policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as outlined in a recent report by the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council. Gelb, who served on the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council, stressed that the energy efficiency project options provide significant cost savings to energy consumers and expand upon the programs already provided by utilities. Another option Gelb pointed to in the report was land use planning that incorporates sustainable community design and reduces vehicle miles traveled and expanded passenger rail and transit choices.

Gelb also called for legislators to request a new comprehensive state water plan and accurate, up-to-date floodplain maps from the Department of Natural Resources.

“We need a better understanding of the hydrology of our state. The last time the state made a comprehensive assessment of its water resources was 1978,” said Gelb.

Amy Broadmoore, the Council’s air quality program director, said the Council supports proposed legislation that would enact a statewide ban on burning within city limits.

“Asthma, bronchitis and heart attacks are all linked to high levels of fine particulate matter concentrations. These concentrations, in much of Eastern Iowa, are near to or exceeding the Clean Air Act’s standards. A burn ban would help protect Iowans, especially young children and the elderly,” said Broadmoore.

Other speakers included Representative Paul Bell, from Newton, and Senator David Johnson, from Ocheyedan. Like Gelb, they called for legislators to pass the measure currently eligible for debate by the Iowa House and Senate, which would allow Iowans to vote, in 2010, on a constitutionally protected trust fund for programs to protect and enhance Iowa’s natural areas, farmland and sources of drinking water. Gelb noted that Iowa ranks near the bottom in spending for protection of its natural resources.

Iowa Environmental Council member organizations and partners represented at the Statehouse today included 1000 Friends of Iowa; American Institute of Architects-Iowa Chapter; Center for Energy and Environmental Education; Iowa Conservation Education Coalition; Iowa Farmers Union; Iowa Global Warming; Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation; Iowa Policy Project; Iowa Renewable Energy Association; Iowa Rivers Revival; Raccoon River Watershed Association; Trees Forever; University Hygienic Lab; Women, Food and Agriculture Network.

###End###

This is a great “wish list” because it advocates for both specific policies that would improve air and water quality as well as broader recommendations of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council.

If you want to receive updates and action alerts from the Iowa Environmental Council during the legislative session, click here to sign up for their I-CALL list.

Please share your experiences lobbying state, local or federal officials in this thread.

The Senate is on track to pass the deeply flawed compromise stimulus bill Tuesday after a motion to invoke cloture passed by a 61-36 vote today. (To overcome a filibuster in the Senate, 60 votes are needed for a cloture motion.)

All Senate Democrats, including Tom Harkin, voted yes, joined by Republicans Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter. Two Senate Republicans did not vote on the cloture motion, and all the rest, including Chuck Grassley, voted no.

Last week Grassley said he would vote for the stimulus bill if it included a provision on low-cost mortgages. Looking here I couldn’t find any sign that the amendment Grassley supported made it into the Senate version, so I assume it did not. I will call the senator’s office tomorrow to double-check.

According to Kagro X, a great side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate stimulus bills is here, but I couldn’t make that work on my browser.

The stimulus was the main topic of Barack Obama’s first prime-time news conference as president tonight. Click that link for some highlights.

Note from desmoinesdem: I changed the headline after Midwest Mom pointed out in the comments that Anderson-Erickson already uses milk from cows not treated with synthetic hormones. Thanks to Midwest Mom for the comment–apparently the company made the change in 2008.

I saw this news at La Vida Locavore:

General Mills announced today that it has made the commitment to eliminate by August 2009 milk sourced from cows treated with rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin), a synthetic hormone also referred to as rBGH, in the production of its category-leading Yoplait® yogurts.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National Institutes of Health remain fully confident in the safety of products made from milk sourced from cows treated with rBST in accordance with current guidelines, Yoplait is taking the initiative to change its dairy sourcing strategy to provide consumers with the option to choose a category-leading yogurt with milk produced by cows not treated with rBST.

As Jill Richardson notes at La Vida Locavore, this is big news because Yoplait is by far the largest brand of yogurt to go rBGH-free.

Beginning this summer, Iowans will see hormone-free yogurt in their grocery store’s regular dairy case and not just in special organic sections or health food stores. (Smaller companies like Stonyfield Farms, Brown Cow and Nancy’s have avoided milk produced by hormone-treated cows for years.)

CORRECTION: As noted above, Des Moines-based Anderson-Erickson, a hugely popular source of yogurt and other dairy products in Iowa, went rGBH-free in 2008.

The company prides itself on the quality of its products:

Future expansion of AE’s market share will rely heavily on brand equity. “We believe very strongly in our brand,” says [president and chief operating officer Miriam Erickson] Brown. “The AE name stands for quality dairy products and service. We never skimp on ingredients. AE yogurts contain 5 percent more fruit; we are famous for double-sealing all of our packaging and our unique cottage cheese recipe. We get ‘love letters’ from customers thanking us for making a favorite dairy product. Our goal is to continue to be ‘dairy experts.’ We can do that through continued standards of excellence as well as innovative new products and sales expansion.”

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Will Iowans stick with AE yogurt no matter what, or will Yoplait be able to increase its market share by promoting its decision to forgo milk from cows treated with synthetic hormones?

CORRECTION: AE was ahead of Yoplait on this issue, so I don’t think Yoplait’s move will affect AE’s market share.

Feel free to discuss your favorite AE product in this thread as well. My brother always wants the old fashioned cottage cheese when he is back for a visit. Before he had to watch his weight, he loved potato chips with AE French onion party dip.

I don’t buy any AE products on a regular basis anymore, because we stick to organic milk, yogurt and cottage cheese.  

Hello, Iowans… I post over at La Vida Locavore and Desmoinesdem asked me to cross-post this diary so you guys could keep tabs on your ex-gov. Can’t say I blame you… gotta keep those politicians out of trouble 🙂

Crazy! Tom Vilsack made headlines for saying the USDA should serve eaters! What, is he reading Michael Pollan now? Well, let’s hope so.

“This is a department that intersects the lives of Americans two to three times a day. Every single American,” he said. “So I absolutely see the constituency of this department as broader than those who produce our food — it extends to those who consume it.”

Michael Pollan nailed it in his response when he said, “He’s definitely sounding a different note than his predecessors. Whether they’ll be reflected in policies remains to be seen.”

Greetings from the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women!

As we begin the fifth week of the Legislative session, we wanted you to be aware of some developments in legislation affecting women and girls. While by no means an exhaustive list, we hope updates on the following ICSW priorities may be of interest to you. Both of the bills prefiled by ICSW are assigned to State Government Committees in the Senate and House and may likely see movement this week.

Please consider contacting your Senator and Representative, or either of the aforementioned Committees with your thoughts on the following three issues:

*SSB1089/HSB73: Enhanced Protections for Equal Pay

Similar to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act recently signed into law by President Obama, this bill would clarify existing protections from wage discrimination, clarify when a person has a cause of action, and would stipulate penalties for employers found to have discriminated. To learn more about the bill, please review our policy brief. Iowa is ranked 37th in the nation for wage equity, and recent studies show that 82% of the recent national job losses are borne by men—wage equity is more important than ever! (NY Times: As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force). This bill has been sent to the State Government Committee in the Senate, and is expected to go the same route this week in the House.

* SSB1050/HSB12: Gender Balance on Local Boards and Commissions

According to a phone survey of all 99 counties, statewide, women make up less than one out of every six county-appointed decision makers on important economically-focused boards and commissions like Planning/Zoning, Adjustment, Compensation, and Condemnation. In fact, even though every county does not have a Board of Adjustment (reviews local property tax appeals), 44 counties have zero women on that particular Board. Statewide boards and commissions have been required to be gender-balanced since 1987. Voted out of the House State Government Committee (20-1) on Thursday, this bill could see floor debate in both chambers this week. See our policy brief for more information. Read last week’s news coverage on the bill here.

*Last but not least, the Governor’s budget included significant cuts for almost all state spending, but made sure to include the full funding amount needed to support the state’s sexual assault and domestic violence centers: $4.1 million. Please contact members of the Justice System Appropriations Subcommittee and let them know how crucial these services are. For talking points or more information, go to http://www.victimstosurvivors.org/. You may also wish to thank Governor Culver and Lt. Governor Judge for making this a priority!

Grassroots activists, mark your calendars: Democracy for America is bringing its Campaign Academy to Des Moines at the end of this month.

I have never attended these trainings, but I have heard many good reports about them. Whatever your level of experience with political volunteering, these sessions will be worth your time and well worth the very reasonable suggested contribution of $60.

Event Date: Feb 28, 2009

Event Time: 9:00 AM CST (10:00 AM EST)

Venue Name: DMACC Urban/Des Moines Campus

Address: 1100 7th Street

City: Des Moines

State: IA

Zip Code: 50314

Agenda:

Ten reasons to attend the DFA Campaign Academy training in Des Moines this Febuary 28th – March 1st:

1. Learn how to plan and run a winning grassroots campaign

2. Meet and hear from local progressive candidates

3. Learn from trainers with decades of experience

4. Mingle with other local progressive activists at social events

5. Get a copy of our 180 page Grassroots Campaign Training Manual

6. Set goals and make plans to pass progressive legislation

7. Re-connect with old friends from the campaign

8. Help elect progressive mayors, city council members and other municipal offices in 2009

9. Learn to organize your neighborhood or precinct

10. Look for a new job or volunteer opportunity

Click here to see the skills you’ll learn at a DFA Campaign Training!

All we ask is a small contribution of $60 to DFA to help us cover our costs. Don’t worry if you can’t afford it, you can always find someone to sponsor you through our training scholarship fund and we offer reduced tuition rates to those in need.

Space is limited so reserve your seat today!

For more info on our trainers, curriculum, and history visit our training homepage at: www.democracyforamerica.com/training.

If you have questions you can email us at training(at)democracyforamerica.com or call our DFA Training hotline at: 802-651-3200.

Can’t make it to the training that weekend but still want to help? You can contribute to a scholarship fund for this training and help send a local organizer in your place. Click here sponsor another attendee!

We have secured a number of discounted rooms at the Holiday Inn across the street from DMACC. The discounted group rate is available until February 13th.

Holiday Inn Downtown at Mercy Campus

1050 6th Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50314

Phone 515-283-0151 Fax 515-288-1339

Ask for the “Democracy for America” Group Rate of $85 per night.

Please post a comment if you’ve gone through the DFA training before.

Why is Iowa Senator Dick Dearden so obsessed with legalizing dove-hunting? I know he’s introduced this bill many times before.

It doesn’t seem smart to let the state legislature get tied up in a divisive debate over mourning doves. We don’t want to give the impression that Democrats are wasting time on trivia during an economic meltdown.

Apparently Democratic statehouse leaders need to find non-spending issues to debate while they’re waiting for revised budget forecasts. Great–there are lots of things they could consider that would either boost the economy or improve the quality of life.

For instance, they could pass an ambitious renewable electricity standard to create more incentives for increasing wind and solar-power generating capacity.

Or, they could give county officials zoning authority over agricultural operations. After all, the Iowa Democratic Party’s platform does endorse the concept of “local control” over large hog lots. This measure would be popular and would address a significant issue in the lives of many Iowans.

If Senator Dearden is suffering from a shortage of winged animals to hunt, put him to work on preserving and expanding the habitat for other game birds in Iowa.  

The state capitol will be crowded on Tuesday, as the Iowa Environmental Council and many of its member organizations hold a “lobby day” in the rotunda and One Iowa has scheduled several events for supporters at the capitol.

By the way, One Iowa is encouraging people to write letters to the editor this week supporting marriage equality. Click here to view some sample letters, but remember that it’s always better to put letters to the editor in your own words. Your letter has a better chance of being published if you keep it under 100 or at most 150 words.

Please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of another event I should post on this event calendar.

Monday, February 9:

One Iowa has organized a Marriage Equality Forum at 7 pm in the First Presbyterian Church, 100 S. Pierce Avenue in Mason City. The group is also encouraging Iowans to change their Facebook status to “I’m One MORE Iowan who supports marriage equality.”

Tuesday, February 10:

From the Iowa Environmental Council:

Join us for Lobby Day

February 10, State Capitol Building

All members of the Iowa Environmental Council are invited to participate in our Environmental Lobby Day, at the state Capitol Building, first floor rotunda, on February 10. Come over your lunch hour or any time between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Visit our member organization booths to learn about Iowa environmental issues, meet others who care about your environmental concerns and learn how easy and important it is to lobby your state legislators about environmental issues that matter to you. If you are a parent, grandparent, student leader or teacher, feel free to bring along your favorite young people! With advance notice, we can be prepared to help your environmentally-aware youth talk with their legislators. To learn more, call Lynn at 515-244-1194, ext 210.

From One Iowa:

Join One Iowa for Marriage Equality Day at the Capitol and have a face-to-face conversation about the importance of marriage equality with your legislator.

Featured Event: Marriage Equality Day at the Capitol

9-10:30 AM: Registration/Training @ State Historical Building

600 E. Locust St., Des Moines

10:45-4:00 PM: Share Your Story @ the Capitol

3:30 PM: “Let them Eat Cake”: Marriage Equality Reception at the Iowa State Capitol

If you can’t make it, send a letter to your legislators and have a conversation with a family member, co-worker, or friend about why marriage equality is important to you.

Then, follow up by posting a comment about your conversation on our facebook group page!

Wednesday, February 11:

From One Iowa:

Record a video describing why you support marriage equality in one minute or less. Go to the One Iowa Facebook group, scroll down to the video section, click ‘add video’ and upload your video. After you’ve shared your video with our facebook group, make sure to post it on your profile for all your friends to see!

Start your video with: “I’m One Iowan for marriage equality because…” (You can view samples at the One Iowa website.)

Featured Event: Ames/ISU “Our Story” Premiere

ISU LGBTA Alliance meeting, ISU campus, Martin Hall 2121

Thursday, February 12:

One Iowa has scheduled a premiere of the movie “Our Story” at the Englert Theater, 221 E. Washington Street in Iowa City. For exact time, check the One Iowa website.

Friday, February 13:

From the Iowa Environmental Council’s newsletter:

Job Openings: Summer Land Stewardship Interns

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation is currently seeking college or college-bound students for our 2009 Summer Land Stewardship intern crew.  The application deadline is February 13. Past interns in this position have included Animal Ecology, Botany, Biology, Environmental Studies or Environmental Science majors and several other majors. You will work very hard in all weathers, but–especially if you ask questions–you’ll gain invaluable hands-on experience and knowledge from Iowa prairie experts. Any grade level are eligible for this particular internship. Experience and/or farm background helps, but enjoying outdoor work is crucial. There will be opportunities to work on Iowa’s various landscapes, including savannas, fens, cold-water trout streams, goat prairies, Loess Hills, wetlands, Mississippi blufflands, and everything in between! NOTE: Because of the large coverage area, applicants must have the ability to travel and the willingness to camp outdoors overnight. Job availability: 8 to 10 full-time interns for summer semester only. The job begins in mid-May and ends after the first week of August. For more information, e-mail Laurie Fenimore, internship coordinator at lfenimore@inhf.org or call (515) 288-1846. For more info about this exciting opportunity, visit our internship page at:

http://www.inhf.org/internship…

* * * * * * * * * *

I’m passing along this job listing I received via e-mail. If you know of a job opportunity with a progressive non-profit organization, feel free to pass it along (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Speaking of marriage equality, a study by Freedom to Marry showed that 100 percent of state legislators in California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts who voted to legalize same-sex marriage were re-elected. That figure includes some Republicans who were targeted by religious conservatives after they voted for marriage equality.

Position: Regional Organizer

Reports to: Campaign Director

Location: Des Moines, Iowa

One Iowa and the One Iowa Education Fund are dedicated to supporting full equality for LGBT individuals living in Iowa through grassroots efforts and education.

Position Responsibilities:

One Iowa/EF seeks a grassroots organizer to oversee regional educational, outreach, and organizing activities in advocating for full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Iowans. One Iowa is currently focused on a comprehensive campaign to improve the public climate and shift thinking about marriage equality in Iowa.  The Regional Organizer will be responsible for educational, outreach, and organizing activities in his or her specific region.

The Regional Organizer will:

·     Develop and manage teams in local communities in assigned region in order to identify and organize our base through outreach and field efforts

·     Train individuals to host house parties in assigned region

·     Identify, schedule, and lead house parties in assigned region

·     Conduct voter registration and canvass efforts in assigned region

·     Implement a strategy to collect pledges and contact information from individuals in support of marriage equality

·     Use various methods to collect personal stories from individuals, couples, and families in assigned region, including outreach and planning events

·     Develop and run phone canvasses, including volunteer recruitment and training

·     Identify, conduct outreach, and manage relationships with supportive faith leaders in assigned region

·     Plan and implement trainings and events for faith leaders, families, and other supportive individuals in assigned region

·     Conduct outreach to supportive constituent groups as assigned

·     Work with other grassroots organizer(s), education department staff, and Campaign Director to plan and implement education and outreach activities

·     Recruit and manage volunteers in assigned region

·     Additional educational or outreach responsibilities as assigned

Position Qualifications:

·     Experience in non-profits or campaigns preferred.

·     Experience working in Iowa is a significant advantage.

·     Proficiency in database management, Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, and Outlook) required.

·     Excellent writing, research, editing and oral communication skills and must be able to prioritize and perform multiple tasks simultaneously.

·     Strong organizational skills, attention to detail and commitment to high quality and timely work product required.

·     Experience in public speaking and the ability to represent the organization publicly.

·     Ability to travel in-state 8 – 10 days/month.

Salary range is high 20s.  Ten vacation days and comprehensive health care are provided. To apply for this position please send a resume and cover letter to brad@oneiowa.org. Applications accepted until position is filled.  No calls please.

Yesterday, I wrote about the compromise made on the Stimulus bill by Centrists in the US Senate that helped win the vote from 3 Republicans needed for the bill to pass.

John Nichols summed up the cuts that were made…

The bottom line is that, under the Senate plan:

* States will get less aid.

* Schools will get less help.

* Job creation programs will be less well funded.

* Preparations to combat potential public health disasters — which could put the final nail in the economy’s coffin — will not be made.

In every sense, the Senate plan moves in the wrong direction.

At a time when smart economists are saying that a bigger, bolder stimulus plan is needed, Senate Democrats and a few moderate Republicans have agreed to a smaller, weaker initiative.

Paul Krugman wrote this morning that the cuts made as part of the compromise will be cutting approximately 600,000 jobs.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending – much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast – because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects – and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The cuts made by the Senate include $40 billion in State Fiscal Stabilization, $16 billion for School Construction, $7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants, and $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity.

The most troubling cut is the $40 billion in state fiscal stabilization.  Iowa is looking at a very tight budget and we are hardly in the worst shape out there compared to other states.

This report by the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities was written BEFORE the cuts were made by the Senate and says the money is the Stimulus will help, but is not enough.  Now that a chunk of that money has been cut.

The state fiscal situation is dire.  Revenues are declining, and demand and need for services such as Medicaid is rising, as people lose income and jobs.  State deficits are projected to equal $350 billion over the next 30 months.  Because nearly all states are required to balance their budgets, states have begun to cut expenditures and raise taxes – both of which create a drag on the economy and threaten to counteract part of the intended federal economic stimulus.

The Senate economic recovery package recognizes this fact and includes substantial assistance for states.  The amount of funding that would go to states to help them maintain current activities is approximately $160 billion to $165 billion – or roughly 45 percent of projected state deficits.  Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding plus most of a “Fiscal Stabilization Fund.”  This funding would likely be sufficient to deter many states from making the most severe spending cuts and to moderate state tax and fee increases.  But states would still have very large gaps to close on their own.

On Meet the Press this morning, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, said that these cuts will essentially lay off police officers and firefighters because States will have to cut their State budgets.

Give Sen. Grassley a call at 202-224-3744 and tell him to support more money for States and for schools in the Stimulus bill.

UPDATE from desmoinesdem: This graph shows that many more jobs are being lost in this recession compared to other recent recessions.

A funny post by Paul Rosenberg at Open Left pointed me to this post by Greg Sargent:

The Republican National Committee, under new chairman  Michael Steele, has quietly killed an ambitious plan to create the Center for Republican Renewal, a big in-house RNC think tank intended to develop new policies and ideas in order to take the party in a new direction, a Republican official who was directly informed of the decision by RNC staff tells me.

The Center’s goal was to help the GOP reclaim the mantle of the “party of ideas,” as RNC officials glowingly announced in December, and the decision to scrap it has some Republicans, including allies of former RNC chair Mike Duncan, its creator, wondering how precisely the RNC intends to generate the new ideas necessary to change course and renew itself.

Rosenberg mocks Steele’s apparent decision to give up on making the GOP the “party of ideas,” but I think Steele is smart not to waste money on this project. As I’ve written before, I share Matthew Yglesias’s view that the time for Republicans to implement effective new ideas was when they were in power.

Whether the Republicans come back in 2010 or 2012 has little to do with their ability to generate new ideas and everything to do with how Democrats govern.

If Democrats fail to deliver on big promises, the pendulum will swing back. If Democratic leaders succeed, no think-tank generated “new Republican ideas” will prevent a political realignment in our favor.

If only we could explain this concept to the Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are eager to strip from the stimulus bill the government spending that would help the economy by creating jobs (school reconstruction) or increasing consumer spending (more money for food stamps). Those same so-called “centrist” Democrats favor leaving in tax cuts that provide much less “bang for the buck” (tax credits for business, fixing the alternative minimum tax).

In the name of bipartisanship and compromise, Democrats in the Senate may approve a stimulus bill that won’t work. That will do more to revive the Republican Party than the think tank Michael Steele axed. Even if a handful of Senate Republicans vote for the stimulus, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats will pay the price if the economy continues to decline.

President Obama deserves much of the blame for the sad turn the stimulus debate has taken. His negotiating strategy was deeply flawed, as debcoop and Theda Skocpol have explained. He should have started the debate on the stimulus with a much higher dollar number and a clear statement that he would not accede to failed Republican ideology.

I’ve noticed on these stimulus threads that some commenters think Obama would be acting too much like George W. Bush if he applied his political capital toward crafting a strong Democratic (rather than bipartisan) stimulus bill, and shaming a few Republicans into going along. I disagree. The most important thing for Obama is to pass a bill that will help the economy. Voters won’t give him points on style if the economy is still lousy in 2010 and 2012.

Bush’s mistake was not being partisan, but using his political capital to push through policies that failed miserably. If he had rammed bills through Congress that boosted our economy, improved the environment, kept our national debt from exploding and didn’t get us bogged down in an expensive war, he might have laid the groundwork for Republican realignment while his approval ratings were still very high.

On Wednesday the Iowa Utilities Board delivered a long-awaited ruling on “ratemaking principles” for the coal-fired power plant that Interstate Power and Light (a subsidiary of Alliant Energy) wants to build near Marshalltown. The ratemaking principles determine how much of a return the investor-owned utility can make on its investment. A higher return for the utility means the company can pass more of the cost of building a new plant onto customers.

The Iowa Utilities Board’s decision was well below what Alliant requested and not far above what the Iowa Consumer Advocate’s Office was seeking. The Cedar Rapids Gazette quoted an energy industry analyst:

“We expect LNT (Alliant Energy) will not accept the ratemaking principles as approved by the Iowa Utilities Board, instead allowing the proposal to die,” said David Parker of Robert W. Baird in Milwaukee. He said Alliant will probably look instead to building more wind and natural-gas electric turbines.

At Century of the Common Iowan, noneed4thneed links to an article from the Marshalltown Times-Republican that similarly suggested the future of the project is in doubt.

Alliant’s official statement left options open but made clear that the company was not happy with the ratemaking ruling. Excerpt:

In its decision, the IUB established a return on equity of 10.1 percent and a cost cap of $2816.00 per kilowatt, excluding AFUDC. IPL had requested a return on equity of 12.55 percent and a cost cap of $3483.00 per kilowatt, excluding AFUDC. IPL has proposed to own 350 megawatts of the facility’s output, with the remaining output owned by other partners or included in purchased power agreements.

“We will need to review the IUB’s written order to determine our next steps,” states Tom Aller, president-IPL. “However, the conditions placed by the IUB on the proposed hybrid power plant present a number of challenges in today’s financial climate, and we are disappointed that this decision seemingly does not take that reality into account. We will continue to work with our partners to determine how today’s decision will impact our respective companies’ long-term generation plans. IPL remains committed to pursuing safe, reliable, environmentally responsible and cost effective energy supply options to meet Iowa’s future energy needs.”

I would not be surprised if Alliant follows the lead of LS Power, which opted last month not to pursue a proposed coal-fired power plant near Waterloo. Alliant’s subsidiary in Wisconsin may ask state regulators to allow an emergency rate hike because the economic slump has reduced demand for electricity:

Utility executives said the increase would be needed to offset a dramatic decline in power sales because of the recession.

With the closing of the Janesville General Motors plant and other factory cutbacks, the utility is forecasting power sales to drop 6% this year.

“It is understandable that our customers find it frustrating that the economic hardships many of them are experiencing could in turn compel us to increase their electric bills,” said Patricia Kampling, the utility’s chief financial officer, during a conference call Thursday.

Think about that for a minute. All along Alliant and their boosters in Marshalltown have been telling us that a new coal-fired power plant is needed to meet increased electricity needs. But future demand is almost surely going to be below what they have projected.

We could reduce our baseload needs further with an aggressive energy efficiency policy.

While several analysts interpreted Wednesday’s ratemaking ruling as bad news for Alliant, it’s worth noting that Plains Justice had a different take:

“The Iowa Utilities Board has missed an important opportunity to protect our state’s economy and shield  Iowa consumers from a significant electricity rate increase,” said Carrie La Seur, President of Plains Justice.

“New coal power plant proposals are being canceled across the country because they cost too much and pose too many financial risks. The IUB has really let Iowans down by opting for an expensive, polluting coal plant instead of the available cheaper alternative of aggressive energy efficiency programs,” she added.

I put the full text of the Plains Justice release after the jump.

On a related note, Plains Justice passed along this news via e-mail a few days ago:

Last week, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) denied a petition to re-open the generating certificate proceedings for the proposed Marshalltown coal plant. The generating certificate grants permission for the power plant to be built.

A petition for re-hearing had been filed by the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate and joined by Plains Justice on behalf of Community Energy Solutions, Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Iowa Renewable Energy Association (the Coalition). Now that the petition has been denied, the IUB’s decision to grant the generating certificate can be appealed in state court although it is not yet known whether anyone will appeal.

A lawsuit would only add to the delay and expense of building this power plant.

Meanwhile, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources is expected to issue a draft air permit for the Marshalltown plant very soon. Opponents of this 50-year investment in the wrong direction on energy will want to make their voices heard during the public comment period on that permit. Coal-fired power plants are a major source of fine-particulate matter pollution, which is linked to various respiratory illnesses.

The assistant Iowa Senate majority leader and chair of the State Government Committee has taken on a new responsibility:

February 6, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            

State Legislator Network Names Staci Appel Iowa State Director

State Senator Staci Appel of Ackworth has been selected to serve as Iowa State Director for the Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL).

WiLL President Sen. Nan Grogan Orrock (GA) announced the State Director appointment in Washington, DC, saying “Since her election to the Iowa Senate in 2006, Staci Appel has provided exemplary leadership on a number of issues important to her constituents and to Iowa.  Senator Appel has a legislative record that demonstrates a commitment to issues affecting children and senior citizens and the disadvantaged, as well as state budget and infrastructure needs.”

Orrock said that as a State Director of WiLL, Appel will work with the national non-partisan network of women legislators to influence federal legislation and budgetary policy.  Appel will work with women from all fifty states to amplify women’s voices, promote women’s leadership, and support a national agenda that promotes true homeland security and prosperity.

“With a membership base of one out of every three women legislators, WiLL is a strong voice for national policy to address family violence, to promote the health and well-being of women, children and families, to protect our environment, and to oppose bloated military spending that builds too many weapons and not enough schools,” stated Senator Orrock.

Staci Appel of Ackworth is a member of the Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL).  For more information about WiLL, contact Staci Appel (515) 961-6982 or the WiLL office at 202-544-5055.

WiLL | WAND

Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL), a unique program of WAND, is a non-partisan network of women state legislators working to influence federal policy and budget priorities.

Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) empowers women to act politically to reduce violence and militarism, and redirect excessive military resources toward unmet human and environmental needs.

Appel has already made a mark during her first term in the Iowa Senate. She helped get the Farm to School program funded during the 2007 legislative session. Last year she secured more funding for after-school programs (although those funds unfortunately got “swept” for flood relief in the summer). She also managed the smoking ban bill in the Iowa Senate and chaired the conference committee that resolved the differences between the House and Senate versions of that legislation.

I don’t know how she finds enough hours in the day, because she is also a mother of six children at home. I will look forward to learning more about her work with WiLL.

Yesterday Marc Ambinder mentioned Senator Tom Harkin as a possible nominee for Health and Human Services secretary in Barack Obama’s cabinet. As much as I agree with Harkin’s views on health care, I would hate to lose his voice in the Senate.

Huffington Post contacted Harkin, who praised the idea of nominating former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for the job:

“I think that would be a very good move,” Harkin told the Huffington Post. “He brings all the background and experience. He’s very strong on prevention and wellness, which I’m very strong on. I think he’d make an outstanding secretary of HHS.”

Asked if he had spoken to White House on the matter, Harkin demurred: “I’m not going to get into that,” he said after a pause.

You may recall that Harkin endorsed Dean for president shortly before the 2004 Iowa caucuses. I like Dean and his views on health care, but I fear that he is not necessarily the best person to bring Democrats in Congress along with a comprehensive health care reform package.

I had to laugh at this paragraph in the Huffington Post piece:

Whether this endorsement helps or hurts is a topic of debate. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Dean’s frosty relationship with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel will be the main impediment to his ending up at HHS. Others are concerned that a major netroots movement to appoint Dean will actually turn the White House off the notion. They don’t want it to seem like they are “bending to the demands of the left,” as one Democrat put it — not because they aren’t concerned with progressive priorities, but because the choice will be criticized as an effort in political pacification.

Heaven forbid Obama should appoint someone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party! People might think he cares about left-leaning Democrats. Never mind that thousands of former Deaniacs became dedicated volunteers for Obama’s presidential campaign. Without people like them he never would have won the nomination.

Marc Ambinder reported yesterday that Congressman Raul Grijalva has urged Obama to appoint Dean. Grijalva is a leading figure in the House Progressive Caucus and was favored by more than 130 environmental organizations for Secretary of the Interior (a job Obama gave to conservative Democrat Ken Salazar).

According to Ambinder, Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is “a top candidate.” Daily Kos diarist DrSteveB discussed some of the names being floated yesterday and explains why Bredesen would be “beyond awful.” After reading that diary, I’m ready to remove the Obama-Biden magnet from my car if Obama nominates Bredesen.

By the way, DrSteveB likes Dean but doesn’t think he’s a good fit for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Bleeding Heartland user EltonDavis recently posted about his plans to start a community-supported agriculture (CSA) farm on land he is leasing.

Turns out he has plenty of company:

The U.S. Agriculture Department counted 92,856 farms in Iowa in 2007, up from 90,655 in 2002, the largest number since 1992. USDA conducts the census every five years.

The numbers suggest there could be a revival in small-scale agriculture. The number of farms reporting sales of $10,000 or less was up sharply in 2007.

Sally Worley, a spokeswoman for Practical Farmers of Iowa, said the increase reflects the growing demand for locally produced foods.

“Farmers are trying to start operations to meet that demand. We really have seen a change in the Iowa landscape of farming” with the comeback of small-scale operations, she said.

But Mike Duffy, an economist at Iowa State University, noted that the biggest increase is in very small operations, with less than $1,000 in annual sales.

There were 23,698 of those in 2007, up from 19,668. The USDA census takers may be finding small farms that were already there but not counted previously, he said.

The news is not all good. Medium-sized farms continue to disappear, and large farms with more than $1 million in sales account for a growing share of Iowa’s total agricultural production.

Still, I’m happy to see that small-scale farming is on the increase. Iowans love to buy locally-grown food; we have more farmers’ markets per capita than any other state.

For those who are interested in getting into small farming (not necessarily in Iowa), here’s a long list of educational opportunities in sustainable and organic agriculture.

Women should definitely check out the Women, Food and Agriculture Network (founded by Denise O’Brien).

My fellow Iowans may want to get involved in the Iowa Network for Community Agriculture and Practical Farmers of Iowa.

Note: Jill Richardson has posted much more analysis of the agriculture census at La Vida Locavore. Here is her summary of the data on very small farms of 1 to 9 acres, small farms of 10 to 49 acres, and large farms of 2,000 acres or more.

In December the Sioux City Council tabled a resolution defining marriage as between a man and a woman in order to seek an opinion from the Iowa Attorney General’s office on the legality of such a measure.

On Monday night, however, three of the five City Council members got tired of waiting for the opinion and passed the resolution in a packed room. The other two council members voted no because local authorities lack legal standing on this issue, but according to the Sioux City Journal, they emphasized that they do not support same-sex marriage.

The resolution has no legal force, and I find it ironic that the self-styled crusaders against “judicial activism” want to use local government to weigh in on a matter outside its jurisdiction. Supporters of the resolution note that it asks the state legislature to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to oppose same-sex marriage. City councils have often requested legislative action on this or that issue.

Those who support same-sex marriage need to be ready for a lot more battles like this if the Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in the Varnum v Brien case later this year. The religious right will lean hard on local officials and state legislators to demand a constitutional amendment. We will need to persuade not only elected officials, but also our friends and relatives who may eventually vote on the matter.

One Iowa executive director Carolyn Jenison is absolutely right to call the Sioux City Council’s resolution “divisive, demeaning, and shameful” as well as “mean-spirited.”

I also think ridicule can be a potent weapon, as Sioux City resident Brian Vakulskas demonstrated with a comment posted on the front page of the Sioux City Journal’s website:  

Every time I swerve to miss a pothole in Sioux City, I take solace in the fact that the City Council has defined marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

Daily Kos user Lava20 recently posted some tips on how to talk with opponents of gay marriage.

You can get involved with One Iowa or one of the PFLAG chapters in Iowa if this issue is important to you.

There are of course no guarantees that the Iowa Supreme Court will permit same-sex marriage, but I am hopeful that the ruling will be favorable. Even if the religious right and their allies manage to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot, I am hopeful that the effort can be defeated. Once people realize that the sky didn’t fall because some couples made their lifetime commitments official, the public backlash against gay marriage will be limited.

For your times they are a-changin’ file, I offer this story. A couple of weeks ago I ran into two women who recently became engaged, anticipating a favorable outcome in Varnum v Brien. (They have been together for a long time.) They have started looking at wedding dresses, and while shopping around they stopped in a store in a relatively small city (population under 30,000, and not a liberal college town).  Apparently the main reaction of the shop owner there was, “Cha-ching! Two dresses!”

I believe the majority of Iowans will accept gay marriage within a few years if it becomes legal.

I learned at Iowa Independent that Senator Chuck Grassley told reporters on Wednesday that he would vote for the economic stimulus “regardless of what else is in the bill” if the Senate approved an amendment providing for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages at 4 percent interest.

He remained critical of the spending in the bill:

“People at the grassroots see it as a lot of spending and not very much stimulus,” Grassley said. “Somebody thinks they’re fooling the people of this country with this package, but they aren’t.”

Senator Tom Harkin’s office put out a statement on Tuesday listing some of the proposed spending that would benefit Iowans:

February 3, 2009

HARKIN: $1.5 BILLION INCLUDED FOR IOWA IN SENATE STIMULUS PACKAGE

Washington,  D.C. – U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today announced that there are more than $1.5 billion in critical investments for  Iowa included in the Senate version of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These investments will create and save jobs; help with budget shortfalls to prevent deep cuts in basic services such as health, education, and law enforcement; cut taxes for working families and invest in the long-term health of our economy.

“The economy is now shedding an average of 17,000 jobs a day, and new foreclosures average 9,000 a day.  We are facing what could be the deepest, longest recession since the Great Depression.  We must act quickly and boldly,”  said Harkin.  “This bill will create jobs now while also laying the foundation for a stronger economy that works for all Americans in the future.”

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $888 billion in investments and tax cuts.  Of this total, $694 billion will enter the economy by the end of Fiscal year 2010, meaning that 78 percent of the monies allocated will reach the American people by September 30, 2010, providing an immediate boost to the overall economy and creating an estimated four million jobs nationwide.

Below are the approximate investments Iowa could see if the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by the president.  These amounts only include major accounts that are allocated by formula, and do not include the considerable funds that will be allocated competitively by the executive branch.

Nutrition Programs

·         $2.3 million for School Lunch Programs

·         $109 million for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

·         $776,000 for the Emergency Food Assistance Program

Homeland Security Programs

·         $639,000 for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program

Clean Water Programs

·         $24 million for the Drinking Water Fund

·         $54 million for the Clean Water Fund

Transportation Funding

·         $389 million for  Iowa ‘s Highway fund

·         $46 million for Transit Funding

Housing Programs

·         $7.6 million for public housing capital

·         $14.8 million for HOME funding

·         $16.8 million for homelessness prevention

Law Enforcement / Crime funding

·         $14 million for Byrne/JAG funding

·         $978,000 for crime victim programs

·         $1 million to protect children against internet crimes

·         $3.2 million to assist women who are victims of violence

Energy Programs

·         $6.6 million for  Iowa ‘s energy program

·         $48.6 million for weatherization programs

Labor, Health and Human Service and Education Programs

·         $18.1 million for Child Care and Development Block Grants

·         $5.2 million for Head Start

·         $625.6 million for the state stabilization fund

·         $65.4 million for Title 1 programs

·         $140.1 million for Special Education Part B Grants

·         $46.1 million for Higher Education Facilities

·         $1.6 million for Adult Employment and Training

·         $78.7 million for School modernization

·         $5 million for education technology

·         $2.2 million for Community Service Block Grants

·         $441,000 for Senior Meals

·         $3.9 million for Employment Service Grants

·         $5 million for Dislocated Worker Grants

·         $5.4 million for vocational rehabilitation programs

·         $7.2 million for immunization programs

 

Some of these programs yield more “bang for the buck” than others, and there’s an argument to be made that the stimulus bill has too much of a grab-bag quality. Yesterday Daily Kos user TocqueDeville lamented the fact that Democrats put together a spending bill instead of “a big, unifying vision for the future – a Rebuilding America Act.” I agree with much of the critique and would have liked to see some different spending priorities.

That said, even an imperfect spending bill will do more to stimulate the economy than the tax cuts favored by Republicans.

I don’t know the specifics of the amendment Grassley supports, but in general making low-rate mortgages more accessible would be good. It was stupid as well as unethical for Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other wise men of Wall Street to encourage so many Americans to buy adjustable-rate mortgages.

I was surprised to see Grassley say that the low-rate mortgage provision would be enough to win his vote for the stimulus. Senator Judd Gregg got a post in Barack Obama’s cabinet and still won’t vote for the bill.

If Grassley ends up voting yes on the stimulus, the wingnuts will go ballistic, but what can they do other than add a line to Grassley’s entry on the Iowa Defense Alliance “Wall of Shame”?

In other stimulus-related news, Obama published an op-ed in the Washington Post making the case for this package. Excerpt:

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it’s a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We’ve seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

It’s a start, but I agree with early Obama supporter Theda Skocpol. Obama mishandled this effort by making bipartisanship (instead of saving the economy) his measure of success. He can undo some of the damage by going directly to the people to make the case for the stimulus. But unfortunately, the Republicans still have the upper hand if they vote against the bill and blame the president for not giving them enough input.

Paul Rosenberg has an outstanding post up at Open Left on a report by Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody’s Economy.com. Zandi analyzed different types of tax cuts and government spending in terms of “fiscal stimulus bang for the buck.”

Click here to view the chart showing his conclusions. Various types of government spending all delivered much more stimulus to the economy than even the most effective tax cuts.

Temporary increases in food stamps carried the most “bang for the buck,” $1.73 for every federal dollar spent. That’s because food stamp money goes into the hands of people who will spend it right away. Not far behind was extending unemployment benefits (which also helps people likely to spend money quickly) and government spending on infrastructure (which creates jobs).

Zandi found that even the government spending that delivered the least bang for the buck, general aid to state governments, still generated $1.38 for every federal dollar spent.

On the other hand, most tax cuts generated far below $1 for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government. That’s particularly true for the tax cuts Republicans tend to favor, which mainly benefit high-income Americans or businesses. These generate between 25 and 50 cents for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government.

By far the best tax cut for stimulating the  economy, according to Zandi, was a payroll tax holiday, which generates $1.28 for every dollar it costs. However, a payroll tax holiday still ranked significantly below various types of spending in terms of “bang for the buck.”

Rosenberg created a second chart combining Zandi’s figures with job creation numbers from the Center for Economic Policy and Research. It shows that millions more jobs would be created by $850 billion in spending compared to $850 billion in tax cuts.

Not only does government spending create more jobs and stimulate more consumer spending, it can also accomplish tasks that benefit the community as a whole. For instance, everyone who uses a bridge benefits from maintenance that prevents that bridge from collapsing. Thousands of travelers could take advantage of improved passenger rail service, which would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions compared to driving or flying. For those reasons, I agree with the Iowa legislators who have advocated more rail funding in the stimulus bill.

Yesterday the Iowa Environmental Council provided another excellent example of how stimulus spending could produce both jobs and cleaner water in many Iowa communities:

IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

For Immediate Release

February 2, 2009

More money needed in stimulus for clean water infrastructure

The Iowa Environmental Council is encouraging U.S. lawmakers to increase clean water infrastructure funding in the economic stimulus plan, now under consideration in Congress. The House version of the stimulus package currently includes $8 billion and the Senate bill $4 billion for clean water infrastructure. The EPA estimated the cost of meeting our clean water infrastructure needs at $580 billion during the last assessment in 2004, according to a GAO report.

In Iowa alone, the Department of Natural Resources estimates water infrastructure needs to be over $618 million over the next two to three years.

According to Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, 87 of these projects, with a total cost of $306 million, could be underway in three to four months if the necessary funding were made available.

Sixty-six communities in Iowa do not have a public sewer system and 21 communities need help to upgrade their drinking water systems says Heathcote.

“These needs combined with the fact that we could have shovels in the ground as soon as funding becomes available make them perfect candidates for funding under the nation’s economic stimulus package,” said Heathcote.

In letters to Iowa Representative Boswell and Senators Harkin and Grassley, Heathcote outlined Iowa projects that could proceed immediately with available funding:

·         25 communities with sewage treatment plant projects, with estimated needed loan amounts of $165 million.

·         41 small unsewered communities, with estimated total cost of $72 million.

·         21 communities with need for upgrades to their drinking water systems, with an estimated total cost of $69 million.

Heathcote says, in addition to the new water projects outlined above, Iowa communities also need help to address ongoing efforts to separate outdated combined sewer systems and to repair or replace aging sanitary sewer system pipes. Until this work is completed, Iowa communities must continue to deal with the public health threat from frequent failure of sanitary sewer systems that result in discharges of untreated sewage into Iowa rivers.

“While we are addressing our ailing economy, why not make a real investment in clean water?” said Heathcote.

### End ###

Maybe Senator Chuck Grassley, who derides the stimulus spending as “porkulus,” needs to hear from Iowans living in communities with substandard sewage systems and drinking water that could be a lot cleaner. You can reach his office by calling (202) 224-3121.

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress need to do a better job explaining to the public that the spending in the stimulus bill would directly boost the economy much more than tax cuts.